Cannabis' Reclassification

[Lufia]

I'll answer to some points here and there.

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

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?

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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".

You 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.

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.

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.

[Matti]

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.

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).

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.

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.

You 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?

[Lufia]

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

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.

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).

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.

If 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".

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.

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.

[Darth Mandarb]

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?

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!!

[Andail]

I love it when Darth defends the hippie movement 

[The Bedminster Incident]

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?

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

[Lufia]

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.

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.

I 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.

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))

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.

That 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?

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.

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.)

[MrColossal]

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.

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

N... no?

I didn't write anything suggesting that.

[The Bedminster Incident]

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.)

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

[SSH]

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.

[Matti]

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?

[Phemar]

I found this about 5 minutes ago. Thought it might be interesting to share.

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

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.

[GarageGothic]

I found this about 5 minutes ago. Thought it might be interesting to share.

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

[Matti]

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!"

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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..

[Phemar]

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.)

[Chicky]

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.

[Phemar]

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

[Radiant]

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.