Cannabis' Reclassification

[Lufia]

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?

Basically, yes.

And I disagree. But you understood that.

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?

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".

I 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?

[Babar]

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.

Seconded. 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
"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.

[discordance]

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.

[The Bedminster Incident]

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.

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

[Scarab]

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, "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.

[MrColossal]

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.

[[Cameron]]

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.

[Evil]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 ) 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...

[Scarab]

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.

[TerranRich]

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.

[Phemar]

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.

[Jim Reed]

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.

[InCreator]

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?

[HillBilly]

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.

That's because scandinavians enjoy their tobacco by stuffing a wad of it underneath their upper lip. Healthier, but looks like shit!
(literally)

[Bror_Jon]

That's because scandinavians enjoy their tobacco by stuffing a wad of it underneath their upper lip. Healthier, but looks like shit!
(literally)

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.

[Matti]

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).

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:

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.

[Jim Reed]

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.

[[Cameron]]

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.

[markbilly]

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.

[Matti]

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.