Adventure Game Studio

So cannabis is to be reclassified as a Class B drug.

For those of you who dont know what that means, It opens up personal users to 5 years in jail and an unlimited fine.

The advisory body to the government on drug issues recommended against the reclassification arguing that it was far less dangerous than alcohol and cigerettes. The government ignored the scientific advice and sacked the head of the committee for "criticising not advising"

What are peoples thoughts?

Firstly should it be a Class B?

Secondly should the government ignore scientific advice and clamp down on dissent of government policy?

Brentalfloss pretty much voiced my opinion in this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvHANQl-aiA&videos=gFAcj3GELIQ&playnext=1&playnext_from=TL). (about a minute in)

It's stupid, it's really really stupid.

I hate this argument. If you're going to sell tobacco and alcohol then why not bud? Alcohol is far worse for you than weed is, i've seen friends lying in a pool of vomit and blood from alcohol; when we were 13! The whole bloody world smokes weed and i've never seen someone throw up/pass out (let alone injure themselves) unless it was used in conjunction with alcohol. Hell i'm smoking right now and it 10am.

Shit happens i know, but it really would be nice if people didn't associate weed with other class B or C drugs.

Cannabis increases negative effects of tobacco... and 90% of people smoke weed along with it. "It is not worse than tobacco" is a big phalacy.

Anyway, I would legalise it. I would feel a bit sad for those weak people who can't live without it (as I feel sad by alcoholics) but it's okay, it's its life...

Yeah there's something like 3 times the amount of tar in cannabis compared to tobacco but the legality of tobacco means addicts smoke it everywhere, therefore smoking 10, 20 or even 30 times more than the recreational cannabis user.

Cannabis certainly shouldn't be treated the same as tobacco, we would have stoners falling asleep at the wheel everywhere but should be treated in the same sort of manner as alcohol. The problem with this is that alcohol is easily tested for, but cannabis can stay in your system for up to 3 weeks so blood tests would be useless.

Quote from: Nacho on Wed 04/11/2009 10:41:46
Cannabis increases negative effects of tobacco... and 90% of people smoke weed along with it. "It is not worse than tobacco" is a big phalacy.

Fallacy is spelt with an F. Phalacy, if it was a word, would probably refer to a penis (Phallus).  ;D

Though what you said is arguably true. Joints are smoked without a filter and thus the effects of the tar are increased.

However there are lots of ways to take THC into the bloodstream. Smoking is just a more social way of doing it

Quote from: Nacho on Wed 04/11/2009 10:41:46
Anyway, I would legalise it. I would feel a bit sad for those weak people who can't live without it (as I feel sad by alcoholics) but it's okay, it's its life...

Thats quite a loaded statement you've got there. Not everyone who smokes weed is some junkie miscreant who will kill for his next fix. Weed is largely harmless and less addictive than nicotine by a long way.

I really see no argument for canabis to be illegal if cigerettes and alcohol are legal. If it were legal it could be regulated. The trade would be taken away from criminals. The tax revenue would be a much needed boost to the economy. plus many more benefits.

We need a dutch person in this discussion. Im fairly sure crime rates in the netherlands are actually quite alot lower than both the US and the UK and there arent drug crazed nutcases wandering the streets killing babies

Quote from: Calin Leafshade on Wed 04/11/2009 11:00:36
I really see no argument for canabis to be illegal if cigerettes and alcohol are legal. If it were legal it could be regulated. The trade would be taken away from criminals. The tax revenue would be a much needed boost to the economy. plus many more benefits.

Actually, I think tobacco is legal because of lobbying and legacy. Alcohol on the other hand is legal because it makes you feel like you were hit by a train in the next morning. ;D

I think it should be legalized. Negative effects on health are much smaller than on tobacco or alcohol, especially if used in some other way than smoking.

Quote from: Calin Leafshade on Wed 04/11/2009 11:00:36
We need a dutch person in this discussion. Im fairly sure crime rates in the netherlands are actually quite alot lower than both the US and the UK and there arent drug crazed nutcases wandering the streets killing babies

Most European countries have lower crime rate then the US and cannabis is illegal in every country except Holland, so it's not likely that the ban of cannabis in the US causes it's high crime rate.

For an example:
The US had a homicide rate of 5.6 in 2007 while France had 1.6, UK had 1.4 and Germany only had 0.9.

This is also a good example, since you wanted to compare with Holland.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2e/Burglaries_per_1%2C000_pop.svg

I want to make it clear the I do not take sides in whether it should be legal or not, I just thought the idea of legalization how bring the crime rate down was weird.

I can't agree with legalisation or that it is no worse than tobacco.

I would guess that anyone who has been a weed smoker, or around them, has a mate whom it has affected. Plenty of my mates smoke tobacco but it is only amongst my friends who do weed/skunk that I see some people (not all by any means but those who do it more) who start losing interest in going out, seeing other people, or infact doing anything that doesn't involve crashing round a mates house, or their own and smoking it. This doesn't happen just because of tobacco or alcohol (although of course they have their problems too).

To be honest I'm mistrustful of the "science" quoted by various people which seems to range from "it does nothing to you" to "it will destroy your mind". But from my own observation I know that it affects some people to the extent of losing their jobs, breakup of relationships etc. and just seeming to not care. I admit that this is probably a small percentage of people who smoke it (but probably a greater percentage of "heavy" users), but to me that is more than enough reason to prevent its legalisation.

Quote from: Calin Leafshade on Wed 04/11/2009 11:00:36
I really see no argument for canabis to be illegal if cigerettes and alcohol are legal.

There is no argument. The prohibition of cannabis is one of the most ridiulous things I could imagine. And if you look at the history of the prohibition (in the US for example), the reasons were always different. At some point they said it's making people aggressive, in the 70s they said it makes people pacifistic and less patriotic. Also, that it's a gateway drug and therefore dangerous. Well, all of that is just plain bullshit and Cannabis surely should be legalized.

Quote from: Calin Leafshade on Wed 04/11/2009 11:00:36
If it were legal it could be regulated. The trade would be taken away from criminals.

Yeah, that's a point too. People who want to smoke it, do so, despite the laws. but if it would be regulated you wouldn't get low quality stuff from the street that is mixed with dangerously unhealthy additives.

Quote from: Calin Leafshade on Wed 04/11/2009 11:00:36
The tax revenue would be a much needed boost to the economy. plus many more benefits.

I think they're planning to legalize it in California just for that reason. The state is broke so it could provide a useful income source. For that I envy the californians (but not for Schwarzenegger..)


Edit: Damn, it's snowing outside. What an odd autumn...

Quote from: Calin Leafshade on Wed 04/11/2009 11:00:36
I really see no argument for canabis to be illegal if cigerettes and alcohol are legal. If it were legal it could be regulated. The trade would be taken away from criminals. The tax revenue would be a much needed boost to the economy. plus many more benefits.

Unfortunately there's folks out there who think alcohol and cigarettes should be illegal too, however that's a tough thing to do (Prohibition was a mess in the 1930s). Just because society has accepted these 2 recreational drugs it doesn't mean it should accept any more.

As long as cannabis remains illegal it restricts the rate of consumption, which in turn lessens the overall damage it can cause to a society. Once you remove the restriction there's a potential risk, and you'll have a hard time putting the genie back in the bottle if things don't go as planned.

[For the record, I smoke, drink, and enjoy cannabis responsibly]

Regarding the criminal element. If they lost cannabis they'd just move to something else, or import greater quantities of say, heroin. Alcohol and tobacco are legal and they're still sold illegally due to criminals dodging the tax duty.

Quote from: Victor6 on Wed 04/11/2009 11:54:22
As long as cannabis remains illegal it restricts the rate of consumption, which in turn lessens the overall damage it can cause to a society. Once you remove the restriction there's a potential risk, and you'll have a hard time putting the genie back in the bottle if things don't go as planned.

Just a thought: Make a "Systembolag of cannabis"
Systembolag = The Swedish governmental organ that are the only ones allowed to sell alcohol. It has made it very easy for the Swedish government to control the alcohol intake of Swedes.

Quote from: Intense Degree on Wed 04/11/2009 11:53:00
Plenty of my mates smoke tobacco but it is only amongst my friends who do weed/skunk that I see some people (not all by any means but those who do it more) who start losing interest in going out, seeing other people, or infact doing anything that doesn't involve crashing round a mates house, or their own and smoking it. This doesn't happen just because of tobacco or alcohol (although of course they have their problems too).

Many of my friends and acquaintances smoke weed and some of the most 'successful' ones (who study effieciently or earn money) are also the ones who smoke the most. Cannabis does not necessarily make people lazy or uninterested. The drug isn't the problem, the people are. It depends on how they deal with drugs, not if they do drugs or not. And I think every adult can decide for himself what drugs he wants to consume and how much.

Quote from: Victor6 on Wed 04/11/2009 11:54:22
As long as cannabis remains illegal it restricts the rate of consumption, which in turn lessens the overall damage it can cause to a society. Once you remove the restriction there's a potential risk, and you'll have a hard time putting the genie back in the bottle if things don't go as planned.

What couldn't possibly 'go as planned' ? Do you think all the people would start to smoke weed all day just because it's legal?

Also, why should the 'overall damage to society' increase with legalization? I myself am heavily addicted to nicotine and caffeine and I also drink much. When I smoke weed I drink and smoke less, so the damage isn't at all higher.

If people want to do drugs they do so, may it be illegal drugs or alcohol. I don't see any argument that could lead to the conclusion that legalizing another drug would result in a higher damage for society.

Quote from: Mr Matti on Wed 04/11/2009 12:16:45
When I smoke weed I drink and smoke less, so the damage isn't at all higher.

I agree, weed is 10x more satisfying to a smoker.

Quote from: Nacho on Wed 04/11/2009 10:41:46
Cannabis increases negative effects of tobacco...

And it increases even more when also drinking alcohol...

Quote from: Chicky on Wed 04/11/2009 12:23:52

Quote from: Mr Matti on Wed 04/11/2009 12:16:45
When I smoke weed I drink and smoke less, so the damage isn't at all higher.

I agree, weed is 10x more satisfying to a smoker.

Still the combination of a smoking tobacco+weed and drinking seems to be the danger, it doesn't matter how much you smoke/drink...

Quote from: Mr Matti on Wed 04/11/2009 12:16:45
The drug isn't the problem, the people are. It depends on how they deal with drugs, not if they do drugs or not. And I think every adult can decide for himself what drugs he wants to consume and how much.

True as long as it isn't hard drugs. Almost no one can resist that and just use it for only once in a few months or something.

Quote from: Victor6 on Wed 04/11/2009 11:54:22
As long as cannabis remains illegal it restricts the rate of consumption, which in turn lessens the overall damage it can cause to a society. Once you remove the restriction there's a potential risk, and you'll have a hard time putting the genie back in the bottle if things don't go as planned.

The rate of consumption will not go up by legalizing it. People who are buying it, will keep buying it.
And their consumption will still be the same. So I think it rather will keep stable.

Legalizing soft drugs give us at least one positive thing:
getting rid of those street dealers who drive those big fancy cars.

Oh, and when people should need it for medical use but they don't get a approval from a doctor,
they then can just buy it normally. Always better then those stupid pills.
I do know a person like this who is suffering from a neuromusculaire disorder and I made a joint per day [with a very limited amount of pot] for that person so she didn't had to take those slackening pills. And it did work way better.
With those pills she felled asleep in her chair within 5 minutes and also peed in that chair... Not with a small joint.

Quote from: Mr Matti on Wed 04/11/2009 12:16:45
What couldn't possibly 'go as planned' ? Do you think all the people would start to smoke weed all day just because it's legal?

There's a chance some people might. We can't take a rosy view based on our own current experiences, we have to look a the bigger picture. As you pointed out, the drug isn't the problem, people are. If the state can't trust society to use it responsibly, they can't risk legalizing it.

For example alcohol is fine in moderation, it's the binge drinkers who start fights in the city center at 3am that get the press (and society) moaning. It is a mind altering substance, it does affect peoples judgements, and with that comes the potential risks of wide spread use resulting in disasters.

Class B eh? Gosh, look at the time, it's 1984 already!

Weed should so be legal. I'm an artist goddamnit, and weed is the fuel to my creative fire!
On the plus side, Peyote and Absinthe are basically legal where I live, hooray!

Quote from: Calin Leafshade on Wed 04/11/2009 11:00:36

Quote from: Nacho on Wed 04/11/2009 10:41:46
Cannabis increases negative effects of tobacco... and 90% of people smoke weed along with it. "It is not worse than tobacco" is a big phalacy.

Fallacy is spelt with an F. Phalacy, if it was a word, would probably refer to a penis (Phallus).  ;D

Hehe, sorry ^_^. Typoman attacks again.

I do not smoke weed [anymore] but I support its legalization.

There are over 2 million alcohol related deaths each year [source (http://www.america.gov/st/health-english/2008/October/20081023115119abretnuh0.9323999.html)] *

There are over 400,000 tobacco related deaths each year. [source (http://www.vahealth.org/cdpc/TUCP/documents/2008/pdf/Data%20and%20Statistics/Smoking-Attributable%20Deaths%20in%20Virginia_2008.pdf)] *

The whole "there are no marijuana related deaths" myth is silly.  While nobody overdoses on it, there are still related deaths/injuries but they are dwarfed by the number of alcohol/tobacco related deaths.  I couldn't find any reliable "yearly deaths caused by marijuana" facts but that right there says something in and of itself.

Anything can be abused if you don't moderate your consumption of it.  Sugar can kill you if you use too much of it.  It can lead to obesity, heart disease, diabetes... the list goes on and on yet nobody bitches about the legality of sugar or the huge (pun intended) problem of obesity it creates (or adds to).

* these "facts" were found by a quick 'net search.  I don't support them nor claim they are accurate.  Just using them to illustrate my point(s)

We discussed this back in school (in Germany, that is), and had the Netherlands as an example. After legalisation, the consumption rate went down to, I think, about 40%(-ish) of what it was before.
The cool kids do it because it's illegal? Well, then the solution is obvious.

By the way, there was one judge in Germany who fought for legalisation of cannabis. After stating that if it was illegal, so should alcohol be, he got so many letters with death threats (mainly from Bavaria) that he immediately got police protection. Made me think a lot.

Shrugging,
/tbi

For me this is quite funny... Most of "pro-legalise it", say "Alcohol is as bad as marijuana... Or even more!".

Nobody says: "Marijuana is as healthy as sport" or "Marijuana is as healthy as a good mediterranean diet".

Some "pro-pot" guys deffend marijuana saying that there are worse things legalised... Ain't it silly?

They should try to praise the healthy things marijuana has (of it does...).

If it has no positive effects, IMO, their efforts should go to try to ban alcohol, not trying to legalise pot. Otherwise we should finish saying thigs like: "Let's legalise freedom to amputate some other people's legs! It's not so bad as killing them!!!".

No?  :)

Quote from: Nacho on Wed 04/11/2009 17:09:45
For me this is quite funny... Most of "pro-legalise it", say "Alcohol is as bad as marijuana... Or even more!".

Nobody says: "Marijuana is as healthy as sport" or "Marijuana is as healthy as a good mediterranean diet".

Some "pro-pot" guys deffend marijuana saying that there are worse things legalised... Ain't it silly?

They should try to praise the healthy things marijuana has (of it does...).

If it has no positive effects, IMO, their efforts should go to try to ban alcohol, not trying to legalise pot. Otherwise we should finish saying thigs like: "Let's legalise freedom to amputate some other people's legs! It's not so bad as killing them!!!".

No?  :)

No, Thats bollocks.

We shouldnt illegalise things because they medically bad for us.

Rock climbing is dangerous... Cream cakes are bad for us... horse riding is dangerous... even driving is statisically dangerous.

The fact of the matter is that it is not up to the government to mandate what is good and bad for us. It is up to the government to educate us on the dangers and catch us when we fall.

As pointed out earlier, legalisation has positive effects, p.e. shrinking consumption rate, economic advantage (i.e. tax) and such.
Plus, I find that an educational approach more often than not works better than prohibition. See p.e. the US of A in their 1920s.

Q.e.d.
/tbi

QuoteThere are over 400,000 tobacco related deaths each year. [source] *

Given that marijuana is often smoked in conjuction with tobacco, that can easily become an argument against it. And breathing smoke in general just can be good for your lungs, no matter what you smoke.

Anyway, what I find worrying about possible findings on cannabis is that it would allegedly exacerbate existing mental conditions or render more likely to develop one, schizophrenia being the example that was given. Maybe the physical effects are less dangerous than that of tobacco or arcohol but that doesn't mean effects on mental health should be treated lightly. Governments should tread carefully, is all I'm saying.

Well, legalizing cannabis would at least make all the ongoing research on its effects easier.

Quote from: Lufia on Wed 04/11/2009 17:31:29
Anyway, what I find worrying about possible findings on cannabis is that it would allegedly exacerbate existing mental conditions or render more likely to develop one, schizophrenia being the example that was given. Maybe the physical effects are less dangerous than that of tobacco or arcohol but that doesn't mean effects on mental health should be treated lightly.

I don't know anyone who got any (mental) problems due to smoking. I doubt that a drug simply causes things like shizophrenia, unless the person already had mental problems. I know people who had bad experiences with marijuana and they did the obvious thing: They stopped smoking it.

Also, the prohibition is useless, because one can buy it anyway. Who wants it, gets it.

Quote from: Lufia on Wed 04/11/2009 17:31:29
Governments should tread carefully, is all I'm saying.

I can't understand the people here who mention the government. Who gives the government the right to decide what drugs the people should consume? Is the government some enlightened entity which knows what's best for the people? They also send young adults to senseless wars in foreign countries....

Also, as it's been mentioned before: There are lots of addictions: I don't think sitting in front of the TV for 10 hours a day is any better than being drunk every day. I doubt eating burgers and fries until you don't fit in a carseat anymore is any better than being unemployed due to excessive marijuana consumption.

That's no reason to forbid these things. People who get obsessively addicted by whatever have some problems and the answer is to solve these problems, not to ban things. Drugs (at least the soft ones) don't turn healthy, happy people into junkies. I've only had good (or mediocre) experiences with weed and so do most of the people I know. If someone has some problems, then I shouldn't smoke it either?

Yeah, some people have bad experiences going on rollercoasters... so they dont go on one again.

QuoteI doubt that a drug simply causes things like shizophrenia, unless the person already had mental problems.

Did you just ignore half of my sentence or is the meaning of "exacerbate" unclear?

Let me explain my train of thought better on that one:
Who smokes irresponsibly because it's cool (tobacco and/or pot)? Teenagers. Who's mentally fragile? Teenagers as well. Is it a good idea to give teenagers a drug that would potentially aggravate any mental problems they have? (If that reasoning is wrong, enlighten me.)

If there is a risk to public health, it's the government's problem. They are campaigning against tobacco, alcohol and junk food where I live. For the freedom of reasonable adults to smoke their fortnightly joint we should let teens be heavy smokers with possibly disastrous consequences? Hence 'tread carefully'.

You can call that stance hypocritical given that alcohol and tobacco are legal. But that's exactly what makes this problematic different. Instead of the "worse things are legal" argument, you should examine the benefits / disadvantages of legalizing cannabis without shaky comparisons to other drugs. I hear all of you on the possible benefits, just pointing out what in my opinion is a possibly very big disadvantage here.

When I look at it objectively, I think it's absurd that alcohol is legal.
Think of all the crimes we wouldn't have, all the domestic violence we would avoid, all the drunk driving we wouldn't have, all the loose cannons that would be less loose.

I enjoy alcohol myself; in fact it does wonders for me, but I would gladly sign up for a total, global ban. If I could push a button that would blow up all alcohol and erase the entire concept from the memory of mankind, I would, because I think it would be so beneficial for our world.

I think the alcohol vs. canabis debate is slightly flawed. Haschis and marijuana are not at all as intertwined in our society as beer and wine. The latter carry an enormous cultural weight, and are much more than just means of intoxication, which is why it's relatively easy to ban various peripheral drugs and substances, but nearly impossible to discuss a banning of alcohol.

Also, when people list all the facts and numbers that support the legalisation of cannabis, I think they must be forgetting or at least ignoring several factors.
I know of people who've had psychoses, and entered depressions, after just haschis usage, and I often hear that people who smoke a lot during a long period of time seem to sort of get lost in time, and later say that they felt how they disappeared during that time, and afterwards can't account for whatever happened during that period. I don't mean a literal unconsciousness; I mean that they function almost as normal, but can't really use their time well. I dunno really, just thinking loud right now.

I had my experiments when I was younger, didn't like it much and don't care more or less about either legalization or opposite. Whichever way reduces crime is probably best way. And crime as in big money moving through cartels and corrupting powers, not "omg you smoked something"-crime.

But what I don't get is argumenting with casualties.

Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Wed 04/11/2009 15:02:20
There are over 2 million alcohol related deaths each year [source (http://www.america.gov/st/health-english/2008/October/20081023115119abretnuh0.9323999.html)] *

There are over 400,000 tobacco related deaths each year. [source (http://www.vahealth.org/cdpc/TUCP/documents/2008/pdf/Data%20and%20Statistics/Smoking-Attributable%20Deaths%20in%20Virginia_2008.pdf)] *

...and? Infamous Zyklon B gas killed 1.2 million people in nazi death camps, "only". That's during 3 years and still less than alcohol does in a year! Should we legalize it now?

Quote from: InCreator on Wed 04/11/2009 19:19:59

Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Wed 04/11/2009 15:02:20
There are over 2 million alcohol related deaths each year [source (http://www.america.gov/st/health-english/2008/October/20081023115119abretnuh0.9323999.html)] *

There are over 400,000 tobacco related deaths each year. [source (http://www.vahealth.org/cdpc/TUCP/documents/2008/pdf/Data%20and%20Statistics/Smoking-Attributable%20Deaths%20in%20Virginia_2008.pdf)] *

...and? Infamous Zyklon B gas killed 1.2 million people in nazi death camps, "only". That's during 3 years and still less than alcohol does in a year! Should we legalize it now?

Er, wasn't it legal? For personal use at least, not for holocausting other people.

Quote from: InCreator on Wed 04/11/2009 19:19:59But what I don't get is argumenting with casualties.
...and? Infamous Zyklon B gas killed 1.2 million people in nazi death camps, "only". That's during 3 years and still less than alcohol does in a year! Should we legalize it now?

The legalization argument must be made to the "law makers".  Those law makers site, as their reasons as to why it's an illegal drug, the harmful effects of marijuana.  Pointing out (my links) that there are worse vices that cause more harm, and that are legal, is a valid point to make.  I fail to see where the confusion comes in there?

Relating it zyklon B actually helps my point (though I'm not sure why you'd make the connection ... it's not like a murderous regime is throwing people into shower rooms and making them drink vodka until they die from it).  Zyklon B was originally a pesticide (legal to own) and was altered to be used in the death camps.  Chlorine (which millions put in their pools every day) could be used just as lethally as Zyklon B (mix in a little ammonia and you get mustard gas (I realize it's a tad more complicated than that)) and is totally legal to buy.  Should we make the sale of chlorine illegal too?

As I stated in my previous post; just about anything can be used in a bad and/or harmful way.  Marijuana is [in my opinion] less harmful than alcohol or cigarettes (or chlorine) so it doesn't make sense for it to be illegal when those others aren't.  Again, I don't partake in the herb, I just find the situation silly.

Also, personally, I find this debate useless as it's seemingly as strong as the religion v science debate with both sides so strongly opposed to the other.

However; to those against the legalization I'd suggest getting ready for disappointment.

Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Wed 04/11/2009 20:02:11
Also, personally, I find this debate useless as it's seemingly as strong as the religion v science debate with both sides so strongly opposed to the other.

Oh come on!
Debates aren't useless just because people disagree strongly. I came into this thread with a pretty open mind, and I've already shifted a lot in my opinions.

I mean, we have to be able to discuss something in here, more than just general mindless whackiness.

QuoteMarijuana is [in my opinion] less harmful than alcohol or cigarettes (or chlorine) so it doesn't make sense for it to be illegal when those others aren't.

I really don't get that kind of argument. Snorting bleach is certainly more harmful than snorting cocaine, let's legalize cocaine? The last trendy thing in clubs is to drink industrial solvents to get high, apparently. Do we legalize all hard drugs because the solvent kills you faster than them?

If you start reasoning like that, you just end up legalizing everything. And when you see how unreasonable people can be, that can't turn out in a good way.

The thing that concerns me most about all this is the level to which governments are starting to tell us what's good for us and what isn't. Where I live there's a lot of concern about fatty/sugary foods, and talk of banning some of the more harmful fats from food products. I don't smoke at all, but I know some people do and from what I can see they're not damaging society. They may be damaging themselves, I don't know, but it's not the government's place to tell them they can't do that. Once we let them start they can ban anything -- McDonald's, speed skating, sex -- that they think isn't good for us. That may seem extreme, but I think we're starting down that road, and it's a little bit scary.

Quote from: Lufia on Wed 04/11/2009 18:29:05

QuoteI doubt that a drug simply causes things like shizophrenia, unless the person already had mental problems.

Did you just ignore half of my sentence or is the meaning of "exacerbate" unclear?

Yes, sorry. It was indeed unclear.

Quote
Let me explain my train of thought better on that one:
Who smokes irresponsibly because it's cool (tobacco and/or pot)? Teenagers. Who's mentally fragile? Teenagers as well. Is it a good idea to give teenagers a drug that would potentially aggravate any mental problems they have? (If that reasoning is wrong, enlighten me.)

It's a myth that teenagers are per se (mentally) fragile. Yes, for many it's a difficult time, but it's not a difficult time because they can smoke or drink.

Quote
For the freedom of reasonable adults to smoke their fortnightly joint we should let teens be heavy smokers with possibly disastrous consequences? Hence 'tread carefully'.

If I want to smoke I want to smoke. It's my personal life choice. As it's been said already, food consumption isn't prohibited, just because it can lead to obesity (which is VERY unhealthy). Why isn't it forbidden? Because it would be crazy. Of course people should eat as much as they want to.

I don't want to do without marijuana, just because some people have problems with it - just like I don't want to do without a bread knife just because some people use it to stab people.

Quote
Instead of the "worse things are legal" argument, you should examine the benefits / disadvantages of legalizing cannabis without shaky comparisons to other drugs. I hear all of you on the possible benefits, just pointing out what in my opinion is a possibly very big disadvantage here.

I never made that argument but it is indeed valid, like Darth just pointed out. What should people think who like weed and don't like alcohol? They have to get an illegal drug from the street, while others have fun in bars and can buy their legal drugs everywhere. Isn't that a bit unfair?

Quote from: discordance on Wed 04/11/2009 21:02:46
The thing that concerns me most about all this is the level to which governments are starting to tell us what's good for us and what isn't.
(...)
I don't smoke at all, but I know some people do and from what I can see they're not damaging society. They may be damaging themselves, I don't know, but it's not the government's place to tell them they can't do that.

Seconded. People should have the right to damage themselves (regardless of how stupid it might be). Suicide shouldn't be a crime either.


Edit: The most obvious argument once again:

Many, many people smoke weed and everyone who wants to, does so. Why should there be a problem with legalizing it then? Instead, I only see advantages, like better quality, less (drug related) crime, more tax income...

Matti: Controlled alcohol consumption, food consumption and smoking does not alter your mentality. Heavy alcohol drinking and drugs do. It's one thing to have a few cigarretes, which is your choice and get on with your life, and another to have heavy bouze/drugs and then without being able to control yourself (to an extent, or whatever, can't get into any research now) to hurt someone else.

I've not tried Cannabis, and I don't smoke, so I don't have first hand experience, so the above is not about Cannabis but as a general comment to the idea of "I do what I want to do...".

QuoteIt's a myth that teenagers are per se (mentally) fragile.

Then my argument doesn't stand as such. Ill effect of cannabis on mental health still shouldn't be discarded altogether when making a cost/benefit analysis.

QuoteAs it's been said already, food consumption isn't prohibited, just because it can lead to obesity (which is VERY unhealthy). Why isn't it forbidden? Because it would be crazy.

If people don't eat, they die. If people don't smoke... my, there's a chance they could live longer! Why isn't McDonald's banned? Money. They're a big company and employ a lot of people. That's always the crux of the matter, isn't it? That doesn't prevent my government for campaigning in favour of eating 5 fruits and vegetables per day. Oh the horror! They're meddling!

QuoteWhat should people think who like weed and don't like alcohol? They have to get an illegal drug from the street, while others have fun in bars and can buy their legal drugs everywhere. Isn't that a bit unfair?

And I can't have my daily fix of heroin legally! So unfair! If you are for legalizing every substance then your position is coherent. Are you?

QuoteSeconded. People should have the right to damage themselves (regardless of how stupid it might be).

Then any public health campaign is pointless?

QuoteWhy should there be a problem with legalizing it then? Instead, I only see advantages, like better quality, less (drug related) crime, more tax income...

Organized crime rarely deals only in cannabis, as far as I know. Again, let's legalize hard drugs to step on the dealers' turf?

I see you bring up tax income. Over here, the government started cracking down on tobacco fairly recently. Why the shift? Because the cost of all the medical problems caused by smoking finally outweighed any benefit in tax income. Legalizing cannabis means more smoking-related diseases (breathing smoke = not good), will the tax income outweigh that?

And actually, not everybody that would potentially smoke weed if it was legalized smokes it now. I'm an occasional smoker. If cannabis was legalized, I'd do it. But for the amount of smoking I do, getting cigarettes instead is less of a hassle. And I know a good deal of people that simply don't break the law when it come to buying illegal stuff. Crazy people.

I see it like this: Either we can keep supporting criminals economically or we can remove their biggest income by legalizing and taxing drugs. People will continue to use them both ways.

Quote from: Andail on Wed 04/11/2009 20:20:51Oh come on!
Debates aren't useless just because people disagree strongly. I came into this thread with a pretty open mind, and I've already shifted a lot in my opinions.
I mean, we have to be able to discuss something in here, more than just general mindless whackiness.

Oh I agree!  I'm not saying this type of debate should be banned or anything.  Just that it seems like it's pretty similar to the religion/science debate which never really goes anywhere but back 'n forth and back 'n forth over and over until eyeballs start bleeding.

"marijuana is bad"

"no it's not, show me evidence"

Back 'n forth.

I'm not likely to be swayed off my opinion unless somebody can present something (fact/evidence) that I've not heard a thousand times already and don't see as a good point.  I am willing to change my opinion, and will listen/read the replies, but I've had this discussion many [many] times before and nobody has ever presented anything that makes me see marijuana as a "bad" thing that deserves to be illegal.

The question(s) I usually ask those that dislike weed (don't smoke it) and think it should remain illegal is:

What harm would its legalization have on you?  Do you think, if it's legal, you'll suddenly have a harder time not smoking it?

I'm sure there are those out there (who don't smoke it solely 'cause it's illegal) who might be interested in trying it when it becomes legal but I don't really see a huge increase happening where zombie-stoners suddenly rise up and overtake the government.  Most pot-heads I know tend to be peaceful and (sometimes annoyingly) chatty.  Places that sell junk food would certainly see an increase in sales.

Legal or illegal millions of people are going to smoke it anyway.

Quote from: Lufia on Wed 04/11/2009 21:48:56
If people don't eat, they die. If people don't smoke... my, there's a chance they could live longer!

I mean eating too much. People who eat to much hurt their bodies, people who do too much drugs too. Where's the difference? That some fragile people can get some mental problems? That's body related too and can be caused by anything else too, like family, job, school and whatever comes to your mind..

Quote from: Lufia on Wed 04/11/2009 21:48:56
Why isn't McDonald's banned? Money. They're a big company and employ a lot of people. That's always the crux of the matter, isn't it? That doesn't prevent my government for campaigning in favour of eating 5 fruits and vegetables per day. Oh the horror! They're meddling!

They can campaign in favor of whatever they want. They let people destroy themselves at McDonalds and I'm not for banning McDonalds. I'm for people realizing that they shouldn't eat crap of a fucked up corporation.

QuoteAnd I can't have my daily fix of heroin legally! So unfair! If you are for legalizing every substance then your position is coherent. Are you?

Basically, yes.

Quote

QuoteSeconded. People should have the right to damage themselves (regardless of how stupid it might be).

Then any public health campaign is pointless?

No. A good healthcare and education about health, drugs etc. is an important thing, still people should have the right to do whatever they want with their bodies.

Quote

QuoteWhy should there be a problem with legalizing it then? Instead, I only see advantages, like better quality, less (drug related) crime, more tax income...

Organized crime rarely deals only in cannabis, as far as I know. Again, let's legalize hard drugs to step on the dealers' turf?

I'm not talking about organized crimes, I'm talking about the people in the streets, selling me some marijuana. They could work in a shop, legally selling good quality stuff, instead of being arrested for providing service to people like me.

Quote
I see you bring up tax income. Over here, the government started cracking down on tobacco fairly recently. Why the shift? Because the cost of all the medical problems caused by smoking finally outweighed any benefit in tax income. Legalizing cannabis means more smoking-related diseases (breathing smoke = not good), will the tax income outweigh that?

Forget that point, I just wanted to add something to that list  ;)

Quote
And actually, not everybody that would potentially smoke weed if it was legalized smokes it now. I'm an occasional smoker. If cannabis was legalized, I'd do it. But for the amount of smoking I do, getting cigarettes instead is less of a hassle. And I know a good deal of people that simply don't break the law when it come to buying illegal stuff. Crazy people.

Okay, if it was legalized then you would do it. So what? Does that mean, you become mentally ill, get unemployed and lazy? Why should it? If it was that way you could just stop smoking it, since it isn't at all addictive. If people have problems with weed than they shouldn't take it. If they do drugs to flee from the harsh reality or something like that then prohibition doesn't help them. Prohibition of a certain drug doesn't solve any problems, it just erases one single way of dealing with / ignoring the problems.

As for the so-called "hard drugs": Yes, I'm for legalizing them too, despite not wanting to check them out myself. Regarding the demonized drug heroine for example: The main problem with that is there being a black market with bad quality, no education, lies about the drug and people being driven into stealing and looting to pay the given prizes.

Heroine does no irreversible damage to your body when taken in the right doses, it isn't dangerous to come off the drug again and the only real problem is overdose, and that's the same with the "soft drug" alcohol. I say education should be the main goal, not prohibition. Oh, and also, a society where you don't have to worry so much that you're likely to take too much drugs..  ;)

Quote

QuoteAnd I can't have my daily fix of heroin legally! So unfair! If you are for legalizing every substance then your position is coherent. Are you?

Basically, yes.

And I disagree. But you understood that. ;)

QuoteOkay, if it was legalized then you would do it. So what? Does that mean, you become mentally ill, get unemployed and lazy? Why should it?

No, it means I become more likely to get lung cancer (for example) which is costly. It means I become more likely to develop schizophrenia (an incredibly common mental disorder, actually), which is costly as well. Will I necessarily become sick because I do pot? No. But my chances of doing so increase. Multiply these chances by the number of people that would become users thanks to the legalization, you have a potentially very high cost.

Is the potential benefit in terms of employment, tax revenues or lowering of crime higher than that? I don't have a clue. But that's what should be examined, not whether worse things are legal.

To be more general, we have a status quo. We have to analyze the costs and benefits of deviating from that status quo, whether it's about legalizing cannabis, banning tobacco or increasing the price of bus tickets. I honestly think that's the rational approach, not going "oh bummer, I can't do that, so unfair".

QuoteI say education should be the main goal, not prohibition.

I agree with that. But my faith in humanity is too low to believe that education is sufficient. On the topic on drugs, their addictive nature makes believing that people will use them responsibly quite a naive opinion. No?

Quote from: Calin Leafshade on Wed 04/11/2009 17:15:34
The fact of the matter is that it is not up to the government to mandate what is good and bad for us. It is up to the government to educate us on the dangers and catch us when we fall.

Quote from: Mr Matti on Wed 04/11/2009 22:34:00

Quote

QuoteSeconded. People should have the right to damage themselves (regardless of how stupid it might be).

Then any public health campaign is pointless?

No. A good healthcare and education about health, drugs etc. is an important thing, still people should have the right to do whatever they want with their bodies.

I find this line of thought funny ;D
"Get out of my way, stupid government! Let me harm my body if I want to!"
"Help me, you stupid government! I'm falling! I'm damaged. Fix me up!"

Also: Yeah, the whole "<BLAH> is worse than my drug of choice, therefore my drug of choice shouldn't be banned!" seems a little flakey to me too.

Quote from: Lufia on Wed 04/11/2009 22:58:18
I agree with that. But my faith in humanity is too low to believe that education is sufficient.

It's also this kind of thinking that unnerves me a little. It's the kind of thinking that could eventually lead to intellectual dictatorships. There are some things that people absolutely shouldn't do, I agree. But it's nobody's place to run someone else's lives. To a point, they have a right to make their own choices, even if their choices are poor ones.

Quote from: Lufia on Wed 04/11/2009 22:58:18

QuoteWill I necessarily become sick because I do pot? No. But my chances of doing so increase. Multiply these chances by the number of people that would become users thanks to the legalization, you have a potentially very high cost.

Again, if we take Holland as example, the consumption rate actually went down to 40-ish %. And if you multiply something by 40%, or .4, the "potentially very high cost" actually decreases from the status quo.

Reminding,
/tbi

Well the main difference I see between this and alcohol is that you can't "second hand drink" in the same way that you can with smoking. If this comparison is being made, isn't the whole Designated Driver concept thrown out the window. According to the GDCADA (http://www.gdcada.org/statistics/marijuana.htm), "Reaction time for motor skills, such as driving, is reduced by 41% after smoking one joint and is reduced 63% after smoking two joints". Therefore simply being in a place where pot is smoked can intoxicate you.

I'm fairly anti-drugs myself, but I guess I'd have no problem with legalisation of marijuana if it didn't really affect me. Although being able to be intoxicated without actively trying to whilst being in a public place is something that worries me.

Scarab, follow that through now, what is the reaction time reduction from being in a room while someone is smoking a joint? Any research on that? I personally wouldn't jump to conclusions about getting high off of second hand smoke from potential research into getting high from main stream smoke.

Personally I'm all for the legalization of marijuana. I think it would be much better to sell and tax it, it would make sense economically. Also, it costs the police a lot of money to continually bust pot dealers, or even those who just have their stash for personal use, surely it would be better to direct these funds to something much more harmful like heroin or ice?

As a side note, despite it's illegality I've found that marijuana use is more socially acceptable than cigarettes or even getting really hammered. Just something odd I've noticed. And shouldn't the law reflect the opinion of society at large? It used to be illegal for women and black people to vote, and that changed because of the populous opinion on right and wrong, due to campaigning and expanded knowledge, among other things.

A lot of people crusade now for the legalization of marijuana, and a lot more people are more educated on its effects, health benefits, and also the not so healthy side of it. It may be complete conjecture, but I think within 10 years this argument will seem as silly as looking back at early prohibition.

I really hate to jump into this, having not read all (but most) of this thread. I'm all about the legalization, and not just because of my-erhm... "personal investment."

The tobacco argument blows my mind. Yes, it is true that smoking is bad for you, and smoking pot is bad for you. However, there is a lot of mixed scientific data about it's dangers. Some groups say it'll give you cancer, others say it will cure it. There isn't a lot of good data available because there are so many drug users that smoke cigarettes. Anyway my point being:

There is more tar and things in pot and hash than in cigarettes, but the amount a single person uses in one sitting is way smaller than the amount of tobacco in a cigarette.

And when was the last time you saw someone smoking a cigarette out of a bong? People who smoke pot regularly use devices to filter out the bad stuff. Plus, dealers literally can't cut stuff into pot. Sure, they can lace it with some other drug, but no where near what big tobacco companies put into cigarettes. Not that I'm putting down big tobacco, but it's true that tobacco companies process their product with chemicals. People who GROW pot don't put any chemicals in their product, other than some healthy vitamins and minerals.

Quote from: Chicky on Wed 04/11/2009 10:57:40
Yeah there's something like 3 times the amount of tar in cannabis compared to tobacco but the legality of tobacco means addicts smoke it everywhere, therefore smoking 10, 20 or even 30 times more than the recreational cannabis user.

Cannabis certainly shouldn't be treated the same as tobacco, we would have stoners falling asleep at the wheel everywhere but should be treated in the same sort of manner as alcohol. The problem with this is that alcohol is easily tested for, but cannabis can stay in your system for up to 3 weeks so blood tests would be useless.

Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Wed 04/11/2009 15:02:20
The whole "there are no marijuana related deaths" myth is silly.  While nobody overdoses on it, there are still related deaths/injuries but they are dwarfed by the number of alcohol/tobacco related deaths.  I couldn't find any reliable "yearly deaths caused by marijuana" facts but that right there says something in and of itself.

YES YES YES! Pot can not be legalized until someone can come up with some way to test how high someone is. Field sobriety tests aren't set up to test for how high you are, they just test if you're slightly impaired at all. If someone invented some device to accurately and definitively judge, in real time, how high someone is, pot would be legalized nationwide in a flash, I'm sure of it.

Quote from: Lufia on Wed 04/11/2009 17:31:29
Anyway, what I find worrying about possible findings on cannabis is that it would allegedly exacerbate existing mental conditions or render more likely to develop one, schizophrenia being the example that was given. Maybe the physical effects are less dangerous than that of tobacco or arcohol but that doesn't mean effects on mental health should be treated lightly. Governments should tread carefully, is all I'm saying.

I've never heard of this, but I'm sure those people already have a predisposition to those types of mental illnesses. If you know your Grandma had schizophrenia, and you're concerned about also having a mental illness (which you should), then don't do drugs. It's not like smoking pot every once in a while will make you go ape shit crazy.

Quote from: Lufia on Wed 04/11/2009 17:31:29
Well, legalizing cannabis would at least make all the ongoing research on its effects easier.

Yeah, remember in the early 1900's when a crazy group of feminists (yes they were feminists, don't kid yourself :P ) suggested that alcohol be made illegal? And then everyone drank anyway? And even though it didn't work in the slightest, it proved something to America: You can't tell Americans what they can and can't do. Even a temporary legalization would be beneficial, even to non-advocates, giving everyone a chance to personally witness it's effects on both people and the economy.

Oh, yeah, and the whole several billion dollars flowing back into our completely tanked economy. Something about that too.

PPS: I haven't read about the legalization of the sale of THC rather than marijuana itself. Ingesting THC, though dangerous dosage wise, is way safer than both smoking pot and cigarettes. Probably even safer than secondhand smoke...

Quote from: MrColossal on Thu 05/11/2009 05:20:24
Scarab, follow that through now, what is the reaction time reduction from being in a room while someone is smoking a joint? Any research on that? I personally wouldn't jump to conclusions about getting high off of second hand smoke from potential research into getting high from main stream smoke.

Well no, I can't back that up, but I don't think it's too much of a stretch to suggest that if you were in the presence of smokers, you could become intoxicated, regardless of other factors that would come into play, such as the size of the room you're in, the air circulation, the quantity of smoke in the air, the exposure time and the potency of the marijuana. If I were driving, I personally wouldn't want to be taking any chances such on this.

I don't think this is reason enough in itself to not legalise the drug, but I think it is definitely something a government would have to look into before changing the law.

p.s. looking back at my other post now, it does sound a little matter-of-fact-ly. I was only trying to raise the point that this could become an issue.

I can vouch personally for the effects of marijuana second-hand smoke. I got high off of it a few years back with a friend.

Still, just because it's legal doesn't mean it will be legal to smoke in the streets or anywhere you like. There will most likely be designated public smoking places (ie coffee shops in Amsterdam) or you should just smoke in your own home.

I wouldn't like to see that awfull shit (marijuana) legalised or even advertised as good, and I've used it for 8 years, daily and in big quantities (up to 20 joints a day) because marijuana is plain bad for people, especialy in a cummulative way, that is, the more you smoke it (talking time and volume wise) the worse the bad sides of its use get pronounced.
And no matter what people may think, it is a habit forming drug and makes the user want more of it each time.

Well, there could be some global (or atleast western) consensus about marijuana already.
This "legalize"-shit goes on dragging for decades now.

Even if it was globally banned, fields burned and usage harshly punished, I dont' think people had less or worse ways to get high, whoever wanted to get high. Our planet's flora is varied enough...

OR

I'm a chain smoker (tobacco ofc) and when abroad, I'm quite amazed how little people smoke elsewhere. For example, I felt really weird in Stockholm because during 3 days of tripping through capital, I saw only 2 people smoking, out of massive crowd you'd see in such period while touring city. Here, every second or third person does smoke.

Legalized cannabis being smoked would be ever more rare sight. And who does, would smoke anyway, law or not. So what's the big loss?

Quote from: InCreator on Thu 05/11/2009 10:46:54I'm a chain smoker (tobacco ofc) and when abroad, I'm quite amazed how little people smoke elsewhere. For example, I felt really weird in Stockholm because during 3 days of tripping through capital, I saw only 2 people smoking, out of massive crowd you'd see in such period while touring city. Here, every second or third person does smoke.

That's because scandinavians enjoy their tobacco by stuffing a wad of it underneath their upper lip. Healthier, but looks like shit!
(literally)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snus)

Quote from: HillBilly on Thu 05/11/2009 11:01:45
That's because scandinavians enjoy their tobacco by stuffing a wad of it underneath their upper lip. Healthier, but looks like shit!
(literally)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snus)

It's almost only males that use snus while smoking is overrepresented by women and snus is only legal in Sweden and Norway, not the rest of Scandinavia.

Quote
I'm a chain smoker (tobacco ofc) and when abroad, I'm quite amazed how little people smoke elsewhere. For example, I felt really weird in Stockholm because during 3 days of tripping through capital, I saw only 2 people smoking, out of massive crowd you'd see in such period while touring city.

I guess that's because cigarettes are damn expensive in Sweden. I just spent a week there (once again) and forgot to buy me some tobacco beforehand. The cheapest tobacco did cost about twice as much as the most expensives in Germany (8 Euro for 32g).

Quote
Legalized cannabis being smoked would be ever more rare sight. And who does, would smoke anyway, law or not. So what's the big loss?

Yeah, as I said, there really wouldn't be losses. The marijuana prohibition is ridiculous and those who don't know its story should read about it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_J._Anslinger

Edit:

Quote from: Jim Reed on Thu 05/11/2009 09:38:05
I wouldn't like to see that awfull shit (marijuana) legalised or even advertised as good, and I've used it for 8 years, daily and in big quantities (up to 20 joints a day) because marijuana is plain bad for people, especialy in a cummulative way, that is, the more you smoke it (talking time and volume wise) the worse the bad sides of its use get pronounced.
And no matter what people may think, it is a habit forming drug and makes the user want more of it each time.

That's just not true. You can form a habit out of everything, but marijuana isn't physically addictive. I'm unregularly smoking weed for 10 years now, but I never wanted "more each time" and I often don't smoke for a month or two. If the weed is good, I need less, if it isn't I need more. Perhaps it's "plain bad" for you, but not for people in general. I know a few people who definitely smoke a bit too much, but the vast majority of the smokers I know cope well with the drug.

Offcourse, if you wanted to, I don't se how any law could stop you from using it. But why would the law legalise it? As I see it, law is made by politicians, who are elected by the majority, and until the majority feel it's good, they will not want it legalised. As an individual I'd vote for the party who doesn't want it legalised.
As it stands, marijuana is illegal in most of the world (is it?), that points most of the people are against marijuana.

There are some good points going for marijuana, but, IMO, they don't overweight the bad ones.

It's illegal in most of the world. Decriminalized in a few places though. And for me thats a least a step in the right direction.

The laws are a little silly though, because there are people who will try it a few times, and might get busted, and that will be a blemish on their history when it comes to jobs and the like.

Only recently a friend of mine got busted for 2 grams, and now has to pay for a whole stack of court fees and if he's found guilty he'll have that mark on him for life. And he's only 18.
Sure, if you cant do the time, don't do the crime and all that, but to have a criminal record for a minuscule amount of a pretty widely accepted drug seems a bit harsh.

I hope someone hasn't said this already because I'll look silly. This isn't a medical or scientific issue, really. It's a political issue, driven by the general public's historically led, rather than scientifically led, views of various drugs i.e. tobacco, alcohol, cannabis.

The government knows all three can be as dangerous as each other, and it makes no sense for them to be separated so widely in law. But legalising cannabis would be a political and social disaster. It doesn't have the same history as alcohol or tobacco, and so equally cannot be treated purely from a scientific/medical basis.

In this light, it is still difficult to understand the move to class B, but it is by no means difficult to understand a class C classification. On balance, it should have been kept there, really.

I think the problem the government really faces is maintaining a firm and coherent stance on drug use, whatever the form. Listening only to the science in this circumstance (and most others) would have sent all the wrong messages. Their adviser was an idiot. If he really wanted to promote a rational and balanced approach to decision making, he shouldn't have made a comment so easily misunderstood or taken out of context.

Doing his job properly would have involved reminding the government of what cannabis is in a scientific context, and in relation to alcohol and tobacco and let the government then decide what the best course of action was. The action taken had to be taken in a social context, and due to the nature of politics (especially at this moment in time) had to be taken in political context as well.

And that's what they did, of course. And if it helps them win the next election and we don't lose all power in Europe as a result, then so be it. Then in term four they can stop playing politics and re-classify it back to class C again.

I don't really see bad points for marijuana.

As for the illegality of dope: In many countries it's "decriminilized". In Germany it's legal to possess a very small amount for personal use, but you're not allowed to smoke it, sell it or to grow plants. Here's a map of the european situation (though I think that it's not completely up-to-date):

http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:European-cannabis-laws.png&filetimestamp=20080802085622

And yes, law can't stop people from smoking it. But legalization would prevent dealers from selling dope that is mixed with plumb (and other stuff), which is the only real dangerous thing about it.

I'll answer to some points here and there.

QuoteAgain, if we take Holland as example, the consumption rate actually went down to 40-ish %. And if you multiply something by 40%, or .4, the "potentially very high cost" actually decreases from the status quo.

Reminding,
/tbi

The consumption rate went down to 40% or went down by 40%? If it's "to", what was the starting percentage? If it's "by", from where to where?

QuoteI personally wouldn't jump to conclusions about getting high off of second hand smoke from potential research into getting high from main stream smoke.

... Are you honestly denying the existence of second-hand smoking?

QuotePlus, dealers literally can't cut stuff into pot. Sure, they can lace it with some other drug, but no where near what big tobacco companies put into cigarettes. Not that I'm putting down big tobacco, but it's true that tobacco companies process their product with chemicals. People who GROW pot don't put any chemicals in their product, other than some healthy vitamins and minerals.

You really think if cannabis smoking is legalized, they'll let you grow your own pot? Really? And if companies put all that crap in cigarettes to make them more addictive, what will be stopping them from doing the same with joints, if the same commercial model is taken?

QuoteI've never heard of this, but I'm sure those people already have a predisposition to those types of mental illnesses. If you know your Grandma had schizophrenia, and you're concerned about also having a mental illness (which you should), then don't do drugs. It's not like smoking pot every once in a while will make you go ape shit crazy.

Damnit people! If you don't know what "exacerbate" means, just look it up in a dictionary! Let's not forget that many cases of mental illness are not diagnosed because the symptoms are too mild. Let these people become pot smokers and you have a problem. Also "ape shit crazy" is a very small proportion of mental illnesses. People can have depression, schizophrenia, bipolarity or psychosis without qualifying for "ape shit crazy".

QuoteYou can form a habit out of everything, but marijuana isn't physically addictive.

But the mental addiction exists for regular smokers and it's difficult to overcome. No, really, it is.

QuoteBut legalising cannabis would be a political and social disaster. It doesn't have the same history as alcohol or tobacco, and so equally cannot be treated purely from a scientific/medical basis.

A good point. So the social cost has to be taken into account in our cost/benefit analysis. How much of an outcry would be provoked by the legalization of cannabis? Tough one.

Quote from: Lufia on Thu 05/11/2009 17:44:23
You really think if cannabis smoking is legalized, they'll let you grow your own pot? Really?

That would be what I demand, just like I demand a legalization. The left-wing party in Germany for example wants to let people have up to four plants at their home.

Quote from: Lufia on Thu 05/11/2009 17:44:23
And if companies put all that crap in cigarettes to make them more addictive, what will be stopping them from doing the same with joints, if the same commercial model is taken?

That wouldn't be good. The drug should be controlled and sold by the state, not by companies. And/or there should be very hard restrictions (like no additives AT ALL).

Quote from: Lufia on Thu 05/11/2009 17:44:23

QuoteI've never heard of this, but I'm sure those people already have a predisposition to those types of mental illnesses. If you know your Grandma had schizophrenia, and you're concerned about also having a mental illness (which you should), then don't do drugs. It's not like smoking pot every once in a while will make you go ape shit crazy.

Damnit people! If you don't know what "exacerbate" means, just look it up in a dictionary! Let's not forget that many cases of mental illness are not diagnosed because the symptoms are too mild. Let these people become pot smokers and you have a problem. Also "ape shit crazy" is a very small proportion of mental illnesses. People can have depression, schizophrenia, bipolarity or psychosis without qualifying for "ape shit crazy".

Like I said before: If their mental problems should increase, then they shouldn't smoke it, that's it. You shouldn't burn cars if you have a long criminal record, you shouldn't eat sugar if you have diabetes and you shouldn't study philosophy when in fact you want to become an economist.

Quote from: Lufia on Thu 05/11/2009 17:44:23

QuoteYou can form a habit out of everything, but marijuana isn't physically addictive.

But the mental addiction exists for regular smokers and it's difficult to overcome. No, really, it is.

I'm a chain smoker myself, but the mental addiction is nothing compared to the physical addiction. As I said, I'm smoking weed for 10 years now, but I never got 'mentally' addicted to it though I really like it.

Again, if some people can't deal with certain things, we can't just forbid them. Should knifes be banned because some people like stabbing? Should sugar be banned because people with diabetes eat too much of it? Should marijuana be banned, because of some people being stupid enough to smoke it, despite knowing that they're getting shizophrenic?

QuoteThat would be what I demand, just like I demand a legalization. The left-wing party in Germany for example wants to let people have up to four plants at their home

And there goes the tax revenue that would speak in favour of legalization. The thing about a state monopoly is that it's a monopoly. They won't let you grow your own cannabis.

QuoteThat wouldn't be good. The drug should be controlled and sold by the state, not by companies. And/or there should be very hard restrictions (like no additives AT ALL).

Tobacco was sold by the state over here for a long time. That didn't stop additives in cigarettes. Crazy, uh?

I can understand your demands. They just seem incredibly naive in light of what happened with tobacco.

QuoteIf their mental problems should increase, then they shouldn't smoke it, that's it.

Many people don't know they're likely to develop a mental illness. And when they do, they, in a majority of cases, don't notice it. Once the mental illness is developed and needs treatment, the cost is there. Stopping pot at that point does not make you mentally healthy again.
And you forgot "I have lungs therefore shouldn't smoke".

QuoteI'm a chain smoker myself, but the mental addiction is nothing compared to the physical addiction. As I said, I'm smoking weed for 10 years now, but I never got 'mentally' addicted to it though I really like it.

You're saying yourself you're not mentally addicted so how can you know whether it's difficult to overcome or not? Many smokers (tobacco) that want to stop say that a difficult part in stopping is fighting the urge to have a cigarette in your hand in a specific context, even if they don't need a nicotine fix: while having a coffee, after lunch... That's mental addiction.

Quote from: Lufia on Thu 05/11/2009 17:44:23You really think if cannabis smoking is legalized, they'll let you grow your own pot? Really? And if companies put all that crap in cigarettes to make them more addictive, what will be stopping them from doing the same with joints, if the same commercial model is taken?

Why would you not be able to grow your own marijuana plant(s) when it's made legal?  You can grow your own tobacco so why not weed as well?  It's a naturally occurring plant that is, relatively, easy to cultivate.  I mean come on ... if all those stupid, lazy, ignorant, and crazy pot-heads out there can grow it then it can't be that difficult!

And the argument that "They" will put all the same chemicals into it as cigarettes is a tad flawed ... because those opposed to marijuana seem to think it's already addicting.  So why would "they" need to put any more addictive chemicals in it?  Also, most potheads I know wouldn't accept altered weed ... weed is natural and requires no processing.

I giggle [quite] a bit at the "it's just as addicting as cigarettes" argument.  I've been around a LOT of weed smokers in my day and not a one of them was physically addicted to it.  I've known a few that were, no argument, mentally addicted but it was nothing like the physical addiction that comes with cigarettes (I'm an ex-weed smoker and an ex-cigarette smoker so I have some idea about quitting both).  You can get mentally addicted to anything.

As for the "exacerbating" mental illnesses theory ... I don't know.  That sounds really far-fetched to me.  I would think any "altering" substance could have an affect on an existing condition.  I am going to need far more than simple conjecture before I'd believe that weed actually causes such ailments (or even just makes them worse (at least worse than any other altering substance))

That sounds like lack of knowledge, fear-mongering and paranoia more than anything else.  Like the hippy movement got back in the 60s because, as we all know, the hippies were a bunch of drug-crazed sexual psychopaths!!  "ACID IS GROOVY", they shout as they rape your puppy!!

I love it when Darth defends the hippie movement  ;)

Quote from: Lufia on Thu 05/11/2009 17:44:23The consumption rate went down to 40% or went down by 40%? If it's "to", what was the starting percentage? If it's "by", from where to where?

From what I remember, it was "to" 40% (bear in mind that this discussion was about 5 years ago, so although the data of course doesn't change, it might have been "by" 40% and me just not remembering it). This refers to the consumers only, not the whole population, so in either case it's from 100%. Sorry if that one was a bit unclear.

Clarifying,
/tbi

QuoteAnd the argument that "They" will put all the same chemicals into it as cigarettes is a tad flawed ... because those opposed to marijuana seem to think it's already addicting.  So why would "they" need to put any more addictive chemicals in it?  Also, most potheads I know wouldn't accept altered weed ... weed is natural and requires no processing.

Tobacco is naturally addictive and cigarette manufacturers still felt it was a good idea to make it more so by adding all sorts of funny chemicals. The fact that weed doesn't cause physical addiction makes the adding chemicals part an even more logical move. Potheads wouldn't accept altered weed... Who says they'll be able to buy anything else? The "bio tobacco" movement never really got off the ground as far as I'm aware.

QuoteI giggle [quite] a bit at the "it's just as addicting as cigarettes" argument.

Who made that argument? Mental addiction exists for pot smokers, it's a fact. How easy is it to overcome? You're certainly more informed than me on the subject as all the ex-smokers I know did tobacco, so there was a part of physical addiction. So, how easy was it to quit weed, assuming you were a regular smoker and were indeed mentally addicted? Not compared to tobacco, but in its own right.

QuoteAs for the "exacerbating" mental illnesses theory ... I don't know.  That sounds really far-fetched to me.  I would think any "altering" substance could have an affect on an existing condition.  I am going to need far more than simple conjecture before I'd believe that weed actually causes such ailments (or even just makes them worse (at least worse than any other altering substance))

I read that a couple years back in a magazine of the "popular science" genre (that's how it's called? science for a broader audience?). I don't pretend I'm totally up to date on the latest cannabis research but that seemed a bit more serious than a wild theory heard in a talk show, or something. I think it was in Science & Vie. Make of that what you want.

QuoteThat sounds like lack of knowledge, fear-mongering and paranoia more than anything else.

And it seems to me like you just don't want to recognize that there could be a cost associated with legalizing cannabis. Besides, in the actual context of the government cracking down on tobacco (at least over here) because the medical costs outweigh any gain in tax revenue and employment, is it really a consistent policy to legalize another way of giving yourself lung cancer?

QuoteFrom what I remember, it was "to" 40% (bear in mind that this discussion was about 5 years ago, so although the data of course doesn't change, it might have been "by" 40% and me just not remembering it). This refers to the consumers only, not the whole population, so in either case it's from 100%. Sorry if that one was a bit unclear.

But the survey was still on the whole population, right? To take into account both consumers that stopped and non-consumers that started after the legalization? Anyway, assuming these are reliable stats, it's definitely weighing in favour of legalizing cannabis. Though we don't have the percentage of weed smokers in the population to know if that drop is actually significant as a whole. (How much money will be saved in absolute terms.)

Quote from: Lufia on Thu 05/11/2009 17:44:23

QuoteI personally wouldn't jump to conclusions about getting high off of second hand smoke from potential research into getting high from main stream smoke.

... Are you honestly denying the existence of second-hand smoking?

N... no?

I didn't write anything suggesting that.

Quote from: Lufia on Thu 05/11/2009 20:30:13But the survey was still on the whole population, right? To take into account both consumers that stopped and non-consumers that started after the legalization? Anyway, assuming these are reliable stats, it's definitely weighing in favour of legalizing cannabis. Though we don't have the percentage of weed smokers in the population to know if that drop is actually significant as a whole. (How much money will be saved in absolute terms.)

Yup, all that was taken into account. I assume the stats to be quite reliable, because I remember my then-teacher in politics as quite a reliable person. Of course, I don't have the original sheet anymore, so I can't actually find the original stats and have to trust my memory, but from what I remember, it was exactly as I said--the "cool kids" doing it because it was illegal outweighed every other group of consumers, and therefore once they stopped doing it, the consumption rate went so far down that even if you took into account the Germans which still try to smuggle weed from the Netherlands to Germany (so, technically belonging neither to the population nor to the consumers), you still had a massive gain.

Or something like that.
/tbi

My drugs of choice are caffeine and alchohol and I've never even smoked tobacco, let alone anything like pot or hard drugs. I also think people who take drugs are idiots. However, there are plenty of other idiots in this world, and criminalising them just doesn't help and makes sure that the multi-billion dollar drug industry's profits end up entriely in the hands of criminals and terrorists.

How can the US and UK get a chance to get out of the Afghan situation? Decriminalise drugs. All of them. Prohibition didn't work for alcohol in the US and it doesn't work for drugs.

Quote from: SSH on Fri 06/11/2009 10:48:34
My drugs of choice are caffeine and alchohol and I've never even smoked tobacco, let alone anything like pot or hard drugs. I also think people who take drugs are idiots.

You mean people with other drugs of choice than yours?

I found this (http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=pot-joins-the-fight-against-alzheim-2008-11-19) about 5 minutes ago. Thought it might be interesting to share.

Here's how I feel about the situation, in brief:

As an individual I detest marijuana, alchohol, cigarettes, and other drugs that impair or significantly alter your mood or harm your body.

As a Constitutionalist I believe it is up to the people to decide whether or not any drug should be accessible to the public.  If that means the majority of voters in my state voted to legalize marijuana then I would have no problem with it.  I consider it no better or worse than smoking cigarettes, and many people know that at one time alcohol was illegal in America (and how well THAT worked).  People like vices and it should be up to them whether or not they engage in them so long as they are not to the detriment of others.


That's all.

Quote from: Phemar on Fri 06/11/2009 17:21:24I found this (http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=pot-joins-the-fight-against-alzheim-2008-11-19) about 5 minutes ago. Thought it might be interesting to share.

Wow, my memory is terrible, must mean I'm not smoking enough weed.

Quote from: Babar on Wed 04/11/2009 23:10:19
I find this line of thought funny ;D
"Get out of my way, stupid government! Let me harm my body if I want to!"
"Help me, you stupid government! I'm falling! I'm damaged. Fix me up!"

Well, not providing healthcare isn't an option, wouldn't you agree? But people have the option to destroy their body anyway. Also, as I said, most of the weed smokers I know drink and smoke less than non-smokers, so I don't see a threat to the public's health at all.

Quote from: Lufia on Thu 05/11/2009 18:26:11
I can understand your demands. They just seem incredibly naive in light of what happened with tobacco.

You can grow tobacco if you want to, it just doesn't make much sense. But if you grow your own cannabis plants, you know that you smoke weed without additives. Also, I'm not at all optimistic about cannabis being legalized so my demands will remain demands anyway.

Quote from: Lufia on Thu 05/11/2009 18:26:11

QuoteI'm a chain smoker myself, but the mental addiction is nothing compared to the physical addiction. As I said, I'm smoking weed for 10 years now, but I never got 'mentally' addicted to it though I really like it.

You're saying yourself you're not mentally addicted so how can you know whether it's difficult to overcome or not? Many smokers (tobacco) that want to stop say that a difficult part in stopping is fighting the urge to have a cigarette in your hand in a specific context, even if they don't need a nicotine fix: while having a coffee, after lunch... That's mental addiction.

Quote from: Lufia on Thu 05/11/2009 20:30:13
Mental addiction exists for pot smokers, it's a fact. How easy is it to overcome? You're certainly more informed than me on the subject as all the ex-smokers I know did tobacco, so there was a part of physical addiction. So, how easy was it to quit weed, assuming you were a regular smoker and were indeed mentally addicted? Not compared to tobacco, but in its own right.

Most of the weed smokers I know (and they are many) don't have an addiction in any way. All of those who had bad experiences just stopped smoking it without a problem. And those who keep smoking (like me) do it in a proper way (not smoking too much that is).

Quote from: Lufia on Thu 05/11/2009 20:30:13
But the survey was still on the whole population, right? To take into account both consumers that stopped and non-consumers that started after the legalization? Anyway, assuming these are reliable stats, it's definitely weighing in favour of legalizing cannabis. Though we don't have the percentage of weed smokers in the population to know if that drop is actually significant as a whole. (How much money will be saved in absolute terms.)

Don't you agree that a country like the Netherlands doesn't have a problem with legalized cannabis? Show me any statistics about higher crime rate/addiction/unemployement or whatsoever. It's common sense that these things won't increase..

Mental addiction does exist, but it's pretty easy to overcome. I used to be mentally addicted, smoking up to three joints a day.
Then I didn't feel like smoking so much anymore so guess what - I stopped. Big deal (not really).

There's tons of other legal drugs that nobody seems to mind so I really don't see why everyone's having such a big fanny fit about weed. (Salvia divinorum, and a whole bunch of other plants that not many people know about.)

Hmm, three joints a day doesn't seem like such a problem. On another note, it's pretty easy to replace joints with roll ups, seems like the addiction is in the tobacco to me.

We should show Gordon Brown this thread. Ahh, texture like sun.

Yea Chicky you might be right there. I smoke quite a few rollies these days it seems.

As for three joints not being such a problem - I don't think you've seen the size of the joints I roll haha ;D

Quote from: Calin Leafshade on Wed 04/11/2009 10:00:22
What are peoples thoughts?

That this government fires advisors for not giving the advice the government was hoping for, should tell you enough about their capabilities.