Did your opinion change? Looking back.

[Chips]

Well, was (or did) say that the crime problem won't go away with legislation. Then I saw it's just about hash. What's the actual crime figures for that drug (as in conviction and criminalisation?).

The National Drug Agency thinks 270 tons of it per year is used in the UK. Would it really make much difference if it's legal or not? Apart from the "grow your own" argument, established drug routes won't change and may be cheaper still than buying it from government taxed sources. Also, grow your own aint taxed. So that isn't going to work...

Furthermore, if it's legal, then bringing it in from elsewhere without paying tax is... difficult to determine. Like cigarette smuggling - where they think about 10-20% of all cigarettes in the UK aren't duty paid. You aren't necessarily going to get the volumes you think you will from tax, and you aren't necessarily going to get the controlled / decent supply you think are you. People will still access the cheapest source possible, the drugs pushers will still exist, etc.

My main issue with drugs is:
1) Damage to individuals and others through its use.
2) Crime caused to pay for the habit*

So no issue as long as points 1 and 2 are addressed. And yes, that includes "drug driving" - just like alcohol. Would need a massive campaign of awareness to make it as socially unacceptable (and illegal) as drink driving.

*Admittedly more of a problem for hard drugs like cocaine and heroin + derivatives, so doubt this would be a huge issue? Especially if you are allowed to grow your own - but as said - then zero tax raised. So... there goes that reason. It just comes down to "lets not criminalise people" then.

[clakclak]

So how would they consequences of legializing weed change anything?

It only seems like a good way to take control from the black market and move it to an industry that can be controlled.

But that's the whole point. Criminals don't really have a vested interest in making sure their product is completely safe--they can adulterate it with all sorts of nasty stuff to bulk it out and make more profit. If the product is legal then standards can be created that the manufacturers have to meet, meaning it will generally be safer and cause fewer health problems.

Exactly

Maybe this came across the wrong way.

If I understood Mork correctly his point was that if weed is legal the government also has to pay for addicts to deal with the aftermath of their addiction, my point is that we are doing that no matter if it is legal or not.

Well, was (or did) say that the crime problem won't go away with legislation. Then I saw it's just about hash. What's the actual crime figures for that drug (as in conviction and criminalisation?).

The National Drug Agency thinks 270 tons of it per year is used in the UK. Would it really make much difference if it's legal or not? Apart from the "grow your own" argument, established drug routes won't change and may be cheaper still than buying it from government taxed sources. Also, grow your own aint taxed. So that isn't going to work...

Furthermore, if it's legal, then bringing it in from elsewhere without paying tax is... difficult to determine. Like cigarette smuggling - where they think about 10-20% of all cigarettes in the UK aren't duty paid. You aren't necessarily going to get the volumes you think you will from tax, and you aren't necessarily going to get the controlled / decent supply you think are you. People will still access the cheapest source possible, the drugs pushers will still exist, etc.

My main issue with drugs is:
1) Damage to individuals and others through its use.
2) Crime caused to pay for the habit*

So no issue as long as points 1 and 2 are addressed. And yes, that includes "drug driving" - just like alcohol. Would need a massive campaign of awareness to make it as socially unacceptable (and illegal) as drink driving.

*Admittedly more of a problem for hard drugs like cocaine and heroin + derivatives, so doubt this would be a huge issue? Especially if you are allowed to grow your own - but as said - then zero tax raised. So... there goes that reason. It just comes down to "lets not criminalise people" then.

So unless we can get rid of 100% of the black market it is not worth trying?

And on the point of only getting a small amount of money from taxing weed, so far this year the state of Colorado has collected more than 130 million US Dollar in taxes on weed (Colorado has a population of around 5 million).

[Morkonan]

...So what i'm saying is, if you're gonna legalise anything, it might as well be weed since it's pretty much the one of the most benign recreational drugs out there....

But why does it need to be legalized? Is there a missing "recreational drug" who's absence in shoe-box pharmaceutical cornucopias endangers citizens?

Question: I am from Germany. Drug addiction for most drugs (even illegal ones) is seen as an illness. Because of that health insurance companies have to pay for some type of rehab. Health insurance is mendatory, if someone can not effort it, tax money will be used to pay for the insurance.

So how would they consequences of legializing weed change anything?

I'm worried about the effect that legalizing it and providing for it in the general economy will have on children and adolescents. These groups are at the greatest risks, in my opinion, due to marijuana's effect on brain development in adolescent brains. (Under 21yr or so, could be as late as 23 before a brain is actually "adult" even though the brain is still fairly dynamic over our lifetime.)

That's what concerns me the most. APA - Marijuana and the developing brain More research is needed, but I don't think that it's unrecognized that any sort of substance abuse should not be taken lightly when it comes down to brain development and possible long-term effects. I do not believe that marijuana is the "miracle high with no consequences" that the Pot Lobbies say it is. And, if there's a more culturally permissive attitude towards it, it's going to get reflected in use in younger people, even if they aren't legally supposed to be able to use it.

It only seems like a good way to take control from the black market and move it to an industry that can be controlled.

I understand that opinion. However, the same can be said for any illicit substance or even any currently illegal activity. That, alone, can't be reason enough, in my opinion, for the legalization of anything. For me, it's a case of asking the question "What greater good is being served by this." How do people benefit? What are the "good things" that are now possible with this new thing?

Also, we already have legal medical weed, but we constantly suffer shortages because we only import weed from the Netherlands and Canada, because no German producer is able to fullfill the requirements to legally produce weed in Germany.

I think there are certainly medical uses for marijuana and I believe that doctors, in concert with their patients, should have it available as a possible treatment. So, governments should work a bit harder to make that a possibility. Unfortunately, the criminalization of it probably has resulted in regulations and cultural attitudes that make it very difficult to supply it as a medical treatment from the point of view of a commercial business. (As you pointed out)

What is the marketplace for marijuana and does it differ from any conventional market? Well, first, it's a drug, just like alcohol, nicotine or caffeine. Its market is going to be similar to the markets for those substances. Because of its effects, its market is going to be people looking for recreational, chemically altered, experiences. (For adults, occasional use, like with alcohol, doesn't likely pose an extreme health risk, though inhaling particulates isn't recommended for anyone.)

But, what is the evolution of the market and how does it work? It's going to work just like any other market - The more appealing a seller can make the product, the more it will sell. What's the most desirable appealing quality of any drug? Potency. Marijuana is certainly no different in that regard and anyone familiar with its consumption can speak to that.

And, as a new market opens and competition increases, new forms of delivery and new means of increasing potency, all focused on increasing appeal and sales figures, are going to come into play. And all of that is going to trickle down into the younger generation, even if it's "illegal" for them to consume it.

Is that worth it? Is that something that a society can actually say is "for the Greater Good" when it comes to legalizing marijuana?

And... that's why this worries me.

[Grim Lock]

...So what i'm saying is, if you're gonna legalise anything, it might as well be weed since it's pretty much the one of the most benign recreational drugs out there....

But why does it need to be legalized? Is there a missing "recreational drug" who's absence in shoe-box pharmaceutical cornucopias endangers citizens?

Well it removes weed beeing offered by the same dude as the one who's selling heroine and speed (what he'd much rather be selling you than weed for many reasons) Since we are gonna use it legal or illegal anyway. And wel whenever softdrugs have been presented as a legal alternative hard-drugs usage has gone down. So there's that, and well why not??

[clakclak]

...So what i'm saying is, if you're gonna legalise anything, it might as well be weed since it's pretty much the one of the most benign recreational drugs out there....

But why does it need to be legalized? Is there a missing "recreational drug" who's absence in shoe-box pharmaceutical cornucopias endangers citizens?

- No more needless criminalisation of people who just like to smoke a joint every now and then

- Opening up police for other tasks

- No more "laced" weed, because quality (ideally) is being controlled like it is the case for alcohol and cigarettes, reducing health problems with consumers

- Less money for criminal drug dealers

- New Tax income for the state

- Direct possiability to do prevention work, for example in the form of pictures and warnings like they exist on cigarettes

- better possibility to control that drugs don't fall into the hands of children or teenagers (may not work in all cases, but dealers certainly never want to see your ID and check if you are of legal age)

- Consumers are no longer forced to hide their consume, making it possiable to sooner detect a problematic consume pattern

- like Grim said, no more crossover of people selling weed and heroine

- creation of new legal jobs in the field (no pun intended)

- if part of the black market brakes away that reduces orginised crime in the country where Mafia like groups control the production

[Morkonan]

Well it removes weed beeing offered by the same dude as the one who's selling heroine and speed (what he'd much rather be selling you than weed for many reasons) Since we are gonna use it legal or illegal anyway. ..

How in the world is this going to prevent illegal sales? That's just not going to happen in any case where a profit can be made. In California, for instance, the illegal growers have surged. Black market growers Some interesting statistics: Havscope - Marijuana (I haven't yet tried to verify the source to see if all of these are legit. It "appears" as if they are, but this subject is fraught with garbage "facts" on teh interwebz.)

Generally, an illegal market opens up when either something is criminalized and there is still a demand for it OR obtaining something that is desired, but is heavily regulated, is easier or cheaper to do illegally than legally. ie: Avoiding buying products that have marked up prices due to additional taxes/regulatory costs. In the US, there is still a large black-market trade in alcohol and cigarettes, for instance, even though those are available in the regular marketplace.

If it's cheaper to buy from a dealer than a shop, don't you think people will do so? And, if possession is no longer criminalized, it's even easier for everyone involved in that transaction, isn't it? Illegal growers in California are taking advantage of that, I'm sure.

...And wel whenever softdrugs have been presented as a legal alternative hard-drugs usage has gone down. So there's that, and well why not??

While using marijuana may be less dangerous than using methamphetamines, a decrease there only applies to those using hard drugs who are actively looking for safer alternatives. What about new marijuana users being introduced to marijuana? I'm also uncertain about the legitimacy and significance of the frequency of more dangerous drug habits lowering where marijuana is introduced. It's not like everyone is running around desperately seeking a drug to get addicted to... This isn't, necessarily, a case of a need being fulfilled. It's significance lies in that it is a new market being created.

- No more needless criminalisation of people who just like to smoke a joint every now and then

(Will italicize the rest, 'cause people get annoyed when I quote things individually in bullet lists. )

That can be applied to any illegal activity. This is the equivalent of "padding marijuana's resume."

- Opening up police for other tasks - See the above.

- No more "laced" weed, because quality (ideally) is being controlled like it is the case for alcohol and cigarettes, reducing health problems with consumers - I think this is something of a fallacy, since legal marijuana is certainly going to compete based on potency. And, specifically in the case of laced marijuana, buyers do not return to dealers who sell them laced weed unless that is what they are looking for.

- Less money for criminal drug dealers - That's not likely to be the case, at least not in any significant way. You could possibly say that there may be "less demand" for illegal sales, but there are still going to be profits to be made in illegal sales, especially if taxes and regulatory costs increase/inflate the price of legal marijuana. Legal sellers are going to be intimately concerned with their profit margins and these costs will be passed on to legal consumers. Because supply is likely going to be increased, illegal sellers may even find their costs dropping...

- New Tax income for the state - Is that a reason to legalize something? If we legalized methamphetamines for recreational use, revenues would sore! Yes, they are different, but the point standing by itself has to be illustrated for what it is. It's more padding for the pro-marijuana lobby.

- Direct possiability to do prevention work, for example in the form of pictures and warnings like they exist on cigarettes - And, that works so very well? Are you suggesting that in order to prevent consumption, we must promote it? See the disconnect, here?

- better possibility to control that drugs don't fall into the hands of children or teenagers (may not work in all cases, but dealers certainly never want to see your ID and check if you are of legal age) - ?? This doesn't make much sense. If anything, it will make accessibility much easier for adolescents.

- Consumers are no longer forced to hide their consume, making it possiable to sooner detect a problematic consume pattern - Making it possible to detect a pattern? Who's doing the "detecting?" And, even if they did, then what? It's legal... Are you saying that the government is going to track your marijuana purchases and send a psychiatrist to you house if you buy too much that month? Do you have to register all your marijuana purchases?

- like Grim said, no more crossover of people selling weed and heroine - "No more?" Why is that going to stop? Obviously, general supply of the substance will increase. Simple possession will not be illegal. Taxes, as you have pointed out, will be leveled on legal products. Additional regulatory and distribution costs will be forwarded to the consumer. A drug dealer's prices aren't going to go up, they're going to go down. Will their profit margins go down? "Maybe." But, every other factor in their chain will push their final costs down, too. And, they don't have to pay additional regulatory taxes on it or have to worry so much about their supply chain, if illegal growers continue to grow due to demand.

- creation of new legal jobs in the field (no pun intended) - Is "job creation" worth it? We could say the same for any illegal activity, too, so that's not really specific to marijuana, is it?

- if part of the black market brakes away that reduces orginised crime in the country where Mafia like groups control the production - This is probably more true than any of your other points, but it's difficult to say that this is specific enough of a point in marijuana's favor, as you could take any illegal activity and apply it. BUT, imo, this only loosely applies to the amount of profit and risk involved for them as illegal growers are going to have much more demand opening up for their product. IOW, smaller, illegal, operations may open up that don't require the large illegal networks that were previously required. It may simply reduce the centralized power of the illegal operations by these organizations, making it easier for others to engage in that activity. (ie: The article, above, regarding California's current issues with illegal growers.)

Like many, I have consumed marijuana in the very, very, distant past. I grew out of it, finding that I really didn't like it very much. I'm more of a caffeine and nicotine addict, which is bad enough... Arterial sclerosis ftw! So, I'm not some marijuana virgin shouting from the rooftops.

The point is that I find it very difficult to be in favor of the recreational use of any drug. Or, rather, let's say that I am very cautious when considering that. For instance, I can see the benefits for an occasional consumption of alcohol. (I can't see any for nicotine/cigarettes, even though I partake.. I am addicted and it will probably kill me even if I successfully switch to other mechanisms like "vaping." (Nicotine causes arterial sclerosis and vascular issues.) Do I really have to wear a fedora?)

But, here, my primary concern isn't for adults occasionally partaking. It's all about the developmental effects on adolescent brains and the increase in supply that enables easier access for adolescents. (Adolescent = Those around the 21 yrs and below mark, maybe a bit wider or narrower, we're not sure.) I'm also worried about the increase in associated risks, like driving while under the influence of marijuana and, yes, gateway effects that stem from increased exposure to recreational drugs, in general. (Those who say there isn't such a thing don't know what they're talking about, IMO.)

In the end, I don't see a greater good for us, humanity, being served by legalizing more recreational drugs than we already have. I can see limited benefits for certain people and, at a stretch, the possibility that very infrequent use doesn't pose a significant risk for adults. But those don't, for me, rise to the level of significance in the face of the problems that will be introduced or perpetuated by legalizing marijuana.

[clakclak]

@Mork, Sorry didn't see your longer post first!

[...]

Question: I am from Germany. Drug addiction for most drugs (even illegal ones) is seen as an illness. Because of that health insurance companies have to pay for some type of rehab. Health insurance is mendatory, if someone can not effort it, tax money will be used to pay for the insurance.

So how would they consequences of legializing weed change anything?

I'm worried about the effect that legalizing it and providing for it in the general economy will have on children and adolescents. These groups are at the greatest risks, in my opinion, due to marijuana's effect on brain development in adolescent brains. (Under 21yr or so, could be as late as 23 before a brain is actually "adult" even though the brain is still fairly dynamic over our lifetime.)

That's what concerns me the most. APA - Marijuana and the developing brain More research is needed, but I don't think that it's unrecognized that any sort of substance abuse should not be taken lightly when it comes down to brain development and possible long-term effects. I do not believe that marijuana is the "miracle high with no consequences" that the Pot Lobbies say it is. And, if there's a more culturally permissive attitude towards it, it's going to get reflected in use in younger people, even if they aren't legally supposed to be able to use it.

Look Mork, just so we are on one page. I would NEVER try to argue to consuming weed is anything but damaging to your health, unless one suffers from very specific medical conditions.

Healthy people, no matter if adults or not, will have a negative impact on their health from consumption.

The problem is the following. We know it is bad. But we also know that our current approach does little to stop people from taking drugs.

Portugal for example took a very different approach in 2001. They decriminalised all drugs, with good results.

It only seems like a good way to take control from the black market and move it to an industry that can be controlled.

I understand that opinion. However, the same can be said for any illicit substance or even any currently illegal activity.

For illicit substances, yes, however for activities I think it is slightly different. If I for example steal something, then I am directly harming someone else. If I smoke a joint (assuming I don't get into my car after doing so, which of of course should stay illegal), I am not directly hurting anyone but myself. I may end up getting an illness caused by consumption, however if we follow that argument we would have to ban alcohol, sugar and eating a lot of fat as well.

That, alone, can't be reason enough, in my opinion, for the legalization of anything. For me, it's a case of asking the question "What greater good is being served by this." How do people benefit? What are the "good things" that are now possible with this new thing?

I will ask you the same question. What greater good is served by turning someone who has a few grams of weed on him into a criminal? Some countries have very harsh penalties for even possesion of small amounts of drugs. What good does that do for society?

Also, we already have legal medical weed, but we constantly suffer shortages because we only import weed from the Netherlands and Canada, because no German producer is able to fullfill the requirements to legally produce weed in Germany.

I think there are certainly medical uses for marijuana and I believe that doctors, in concert with their patients, should have it available as a possible treatment. So, governments should work a bit harder to make that a possibility. Unfortunately, the criminalization of it probably has resulted in regulations and cultural attitudes that make it very difficult to supply it as a medical treatment from the point of view of a commercial business. (As you pointed out)

What is the marketplace for marijuana and does it differ from any conventional market? Well, first, it's a drug, just like alcohol, nicotine or caffeine. Its market is going to be similar to the markets for those substances. Because of its effects, its market is going to be people looking for recreational, chemically altered, experiences. (For adults, occasional use, like with alcohol, doesn't likely pose an extreme health risk, though inhaling particulates isn't recommended for anyone.)

But, what is the evolution of the market and how does it work? It's going to work just like any other market - The more appealing a seller can make the product, the more it will sell. What's the most desirable appealing quality of any drug? Potency. Marijuana is certainly no different in that regard and anyone familiar with its consumption can speak to that.

You do have a point here. In fact I think we need new ways to approach our relation to drugs. We managed to combat normal smoking and today a lot less people smoke. For alcohol that can hardly be said.

I would once again like to emphasis that I would never recommend taking drugs to anyone. In fact I would strongly advice against it. However I don't think that simply outlawing something and then doing nothing else about it is going to reduce the consumption of said drug.

And, as a new market opens and competition increases, new forms of delivery and new means of increasing potency, all focused on increasing appeal and sales figures, are going to come into play. And all of that is going to trickle down into the younger generation, even if it's "illegal" for them to consume it.

Is that worth it? Is that something that a society can actually say is "for the Greater Good" when it comes to legalizing marijuana?

And... that's why this worries me.

I certainly agree with your argumentation and I think this is simply one of the cases were most of us know the arguments that both speak in favour and against a legalisation. It seems to be that we considere the arguments from different points and weight them differently though.

The thing is we more or less know what happens when you legalise. The Netherlands have had it for years and before the US started it's own legalisation process the number of people who had tried weed was higher in the US than in the Netherlands.

So it is not like we are opening Pandoras Box with unforseeable outcomes. Sure, you can't simply take the model of the Netherlands copy it 1 to 1 and then assume that the outcome will be the same if you apply it to country X or Y. However we can use countries that already took the step to study the consequences of legalisation and try to learn from what worked and what didn't to hopefully create a better process if we should ever decide to follow suit.

[Observe]

Some of what I'm reading here, hearkens back to the days of Reefer Madness. The enormous propaganda against cannabis is rife with outright lies and that persists to this day in the minds of many.

That said, it is best that people do not ingest drugs of any kind; unless for medical reasons. Recreational drug use, is always an attempt to create a sensation that isn't natural - even if a natural substance is involved.

However, if people must use cannabis, they should not be punished. Better decriminalize and let people grow it in limited quantities for personal use. Better the State receive tax income and be in a position to control purity and potency.

[Morkonan]

@Mork, Sorry didn't see your longer post first!

Was replying and editing, so no prob.

Look Mork, just so we are on one page. I would NEVER try to argue to consuming weed is anything but damaging to your health, unless one suffers from very specific medical conditions.

Healthy people, no matter if adults or not, will have a negative impact on their health from consumption.

The problem is the following. We know it is bad. But we also know that our current approach does little to stop people from taking drugs.

Portugal for example took a very different approach in 2001. They decriminalised all drugs, with good results.

Agreed.

I was just about to write this very same thing, but the article wrote it for me:

... It’s misleading, however, to credit these positive results entirely to a change in law....The official policy of decriminalisation made it far easier for a broad range of services (health, psychiatry, employment, housing etc) that had been struggling to pool their resources and expertise, to work together more effectively to serve their communities..

All of the energy poured into the matter made their success possible. What this demonstrates is that making efforts in treating and managing addictions and advancing the treatment and understanding of psychiatric problems... makes a positive difference in the overall well-being of a society.

We can do these things without the legalization of recreational drugs. The simple fact in Portugal's case is that the increased attention, revenue, awareness and even the systems put in place made this possible, not just the "legalization" of it. If everyone put as much effort into the problem as Portugal did, we'd all be better off. That's possible without legalizing recreational drugs, but the lure of revenue can't be understated as a motive and enabling force.

If every place someone wanted to sell marijuana was, instead, a free or low-cost clinic, offering addiction treatments and psychological counseling and referral at the same price as a bag of weed or even for free, what could we accomplish? But, because there's no money to be made and nobody is donating to political campaigns because of that, we're left with a few people speaking out about the problem and most people ignoring it, because it costs money to fix...

In the US, we're about to hit a ceiling with methamphetamine and prescription drug addiction, requiring society to act. But, for the former, it's difficult as most long-term addicts just end up dying and, for the latter, the legitimate pharma companies don't seem to care very much while continuing to promote their products.

For illicit substances, yes, however for activities I think it is slightly different. If I for example steal something, then I am directly harming someone else. If I smoke a joint (assuming I don't get into my car after doing so, which of of course should stay illegal), I am not directly hurting anyone but myself. I may end up getting an illness caused by consumption, however if we follow that argument we would have to ban alcohol, sugar and eating a lot of fat as well.

Agree, up the point where society has to pay for the activities of abusers, either in crime or subsidized health/enforcement costs.

BUT...

In my first post, I emphasized what some people call "The Nanny State." In otherwise, a negative view of government telling people what's good for them and what's not as well as preventing them from doing things that may be harmful to them or otherwise contraindicated... I'm not promoting the idea of constant government oversight of our lives. But, I am saying that one of the purposes of having a government to begin with is for it to do beneficial things for its citizens. (The Greater Good) One of those may be acting to prevent citizens from harming themselves.

Does a nicotine addict abuse the substance because they want the detrimental health effects, possibly mortal? No. They're just pursuing the consumption of the substance for its perceived desirable effects. Does a meth addict want their teeth to fall out? No, they're just chasing the Dragon of this Age. When we, embodied in the actions of our government, understand that there is a dire risk for a behavior, shouldn't we, as our government, act to prevent that behavior? We do it every day. We have speed limits for a reason. We have "Health Programs" that promote healthy eating. One day, natural sugar may be eliminated if we can figure out that alternatives don't also pose the same risks. Fat? We've already enacted legislation against saturated fats in our diet in some regions. Are those things beneficial? For the most part, it doesn't seem that people are against them. So.. we already do these things. Why is doing the same thing in protecting people from harm have to be different, here? That was my whole point in that bit.

I will ask you the same question. What greater good is served by turning someone who has a few grams of weed on him into a criminal? Some countries have very harsh penalties for even possesion of small amounts of drugs. What good does that do for society?

I agree that the "War on Drugs" increase in sentencing is not, necessarily, a good thing for those convicted of minor possession. I am against all forms of "mandatory sentencing" because I think that Judges have a purpose and it's their ethical responsibility to see that their imposed sentences are fair and what society would demand for the offense. I do not believe that mandatory sentencing guidelines are fair or justified in any way whatsoever. Period. It's still a human being standing in front of Judge, not a mark on a piece of paper or a number in a computer system.

You do have a point here. In fact I think we need new ways to approach our relation to drugs. We managed to combat normal smoking and today a lot less people smoke. For alcohol that can hardly be said.

I would once again like to emphasis that I would never recommend taking drugs to anyone. In fact I would strongly advice against it. However I don't think that simply outlawing something and then doing nothing else about it is going to reduce the consumption of said drug.

We can use Portugal's demonstration of their efforts as proof of this. But, legalization is not completely necessary for these things to happen. It's simply a matter of whether or not we're willing to accept the costs if legalization is not also included.

... It seems to be that we considere the arguments from different points and weight them differently though.

But, we share many of the same goals and concerns. THAT is the fundamental basis for constructive and successful discourse. We would both like to see many of the same things happen and those things are generally "good." Surely, there's a position that upholds these goals without the potentially dangerous consequences of more extreme positions and opinions?

One couldn't, for instance, easily compromise on a position that included legalization of heroine that also provided for free consumption and a free "heroine addict starter kit" on every kid's lunch tray at school, right? Of course not - There would be no compromise possible, there. But, I think there is a compromise position concerning the legalization of marijuana. I don't think that some US States have good positions in that regard and there's too much that has been undermined, IMO. But, we're just now having to work through that problem, so fixing it will take some time and more data.

What if, just to put something out there, that marijuana was handled much like a prescription drug, requiring it to be distributed only by pharmacies and requiring a physician's prescription for "recreational use?" I know it seems crazy for a doctor to prescribe recreational drugs, but we're in crazy times.

The thing is we more or less know what happens when you legalise. The Netherlands have had it for years and before the US started it's own legalisation process the number of people who had tried weed was higher in the US than in the Netherlands.

Different cultures may react differently. What's good for them may not be good for the US, for instance. After all, we have guns... and look at the differences, there! We have prisons and look at the differences in successful rehabilitation between the US and many other countries. I am also not completely convinced that there are not any problems. For instance, remember the heroine crisis in Amsterdam in the 80's? What would happen if we kept cocaine legal in the US after we found out how addictive and destructive it could be?

...However we can use countries that already took the step to study the consequences of legalisation and try to learn from what worked and what didn't to hopefully create a better process if we should ever decide to follow suit.

But, we must control our own bias and we must broaden our truth-seeking beyond immediate effects. We can't just cite examples of limited utility or only look at the small-scale effects. We have to really look at the issue from the perspective of "all of us." It's "our" society we're talking about. Some little old lady down the street will be impacted in some way by the laws we enact, won't she? She may never smoke a joint in her life, but she will also bear some measure of the consequences, even if it's just having to deal with stoned kids leaving their empty pizza boxes in her yard.

We also have to acknowledge that we have a responsibility associated with what we do. Alcohol is legal in the US. And, because of that, we bear some measure of the responsibility for people who are killed as a result of alcohol being involved in an automobile accident. So, why is alcohol legal if people can die because of it? Because we like to have a drink every once-in-awhile...

Because we empower these laws, we bear the responsibility for what happens as a consequence of them.

[Observe]

What if, just to put something out there, that marijuana was handled much like a prescription drug, requiring it to be distributed only by pharmacies and requiring a physician's prescription for "recreational use?" I know it seems crazy for a doctor to prescribe recreational drugs, but we're in crazy times.

I live in Washington State. Previously in Oregon. Both States have medicinal marijuana dispensaries. Customers require a doctors prescription. This was before recreational legalization. Now, anyone with an I.D. proving age can make purchase; much like alcohol. This is how it should be in my opinion - even though I'm against using it personally.

[EDIT] Washington and Oregon are still working out details and differ in various minor ways. Certain high-potency edibles still require a doctors prescription and are often kept in a section that is not accessible to recreational users.

[Morkonan]

... Now, anyone with an I.D. proving age can make purchase; much like alcohol. This is how it should be in my opinion - even though I'm against using it personally.
..

What would be your objection to the system of procurement staying the same, even if was only for "recreational use"?

A doctor would give you a script that allows you to obtain some sort of license to purchase it legally, for recreational use or something like that, as it used to be. As to "why" there could be all sorts of reasons, but I'm just interested in why you prefer the somewhat anonymous procurement method.

(I fully support medical use where monitored and prescribed by a physician.)

[Observe]

What would be your objection to the system of procurement staying the same, even if was only for "recreational use"?

A doctor would give you a script that allows you to obtain some sort of license to purchase it legally, for recreational use or something like that, as it used to be. As to "why" there could be all sorts of reasons, but I'm just interested in why you prefer the somewhat anonymous procurement method.

Physicians are there to help sick people. It would be a waste of their time and everyone else's if people had to see them to get a pass on something that the public and the lawmakers have already established that adults should be able to do if they so choose.

The overwhelming opinion of medical authorities (this was hashed out over the many years prior to legalization) is that cannabis is relatively benign and that responsible adults should be able to use it recreationally.

Generally, it is impossible to overdose on marijuana, because it is non-toxic. As with all substances, some people have allergic reactions that may require medical intervention.

[Chips]

So unless we can get rid of 100% of the black market it is not worth trying?

It isn't about "trying", it's about making a decision that is correct. I doubt you can go back from "trying". The point I made is that all the benefits of legalising aren't necessarily clear cut. Just because you make it legal people seem to assume the illicit trade disappears overnight. This opinion isn't therefore "so it should not be attempted...", it's just "if you're trying to present arguments, have to consider everything".

And on the point of only getting a small amount of money from taxing weed, so far this year the state of Colorado has collected more than 130 million US Dollar in taxes on weed (Colorado has a population of around 5 million).

Well, money is the only consideration in any decision. But I don't think I said anything about small amounts of money. Small amount of weed, yes, as they thought 270 tons of it did the entire UK for a year. That seems surprisingly little.

But, it doesn't really matter. Threads don't change legislation, so...

[Mightysword]

As a person, I don't smoke or drink or consume any kind of substance. My belief (probably influenced by Buddhism) is I'm against the use of anything that will affect one's ability to think clearly, or anything that pose the risk of causing addiction. But at the sametime, I'm not gonna be the one who stop or prohibit anyone to smoke and drink, and I will try my best not to judge them, as long as they are aware something like this:

That said, it is best that people do not ingest drugs of any kind; unless for medical reasons. Recreational drug use, is always an attempt to create a sensation that isn't natural - even if a natural substance is involved.

Most of the tobacco smokers I talk to know that it's bad. They're not proud of being a smoker, it's something part of their life, and they can't part away from it. No problem from me there, as long as they make sure they minimizing the impact on others (i.e the effect of secondary smoker). The problem I have with recreation drug is how "proud" some of its users are. Some people will say "I'm high men!!" like it's a good thing, some will make their use of the substances as a spectacle. Note that I'm from Colorado, and they do this celebration downtown on "national weed day" (April 20th), facepalm myself whenever it happens. It's stuffs like this that kinda make me think the people who afraid it might have a "bad influence on kids" have a point.

That's said, if I see this on the ballot, I would just leave its plank. I have no reason to go against my principle and vote for it, but at the same time I'm not obnoxious enough to think I have the right to stop people from doing it. As for the "reasons" discussed by both side, to me it doesn't matter much. Part of living in a society that you just have to accept whether you want it or not, you gonna have to carry some baggage created by others, and there will always be baggage generated from this no matter how the votes swing. It may be the most sensitive issue because it's new, but it's hardly the biggest, I would consider our eating habit and the problem with obese is a far bigger problem for example.


Part of my parenting will be doing my absolutely best to educate my children from ever picking things like these up. But once they grow up and out of my wings, it will be their decision. I will still try to advice them not to, but if they decide they wanted to pick it up, I'm not gonna have a fight over it.

[muppetts]

The Netherlands who legalised in the 70's proved that it reduces use, for the youth here it is de-mystified, the large majority of smokers are foreigners.

[Masterbagger]

I can't say anything negative about marijuana users when I consume alcohol recreationally. Especially not when I realize that I would still do it even if it were made illegal.

[pjknibbs]

Generally, it is impossible to overdose on marijuana, because it is non-toxic.

Anything can be deadly if taken in sufficient quantities, even things that are normally vital for life like oxygen and water, so I'm a bit leery about anything being "impossible to overdose on".

[Observe]

Generally, it is impossible to overdose on marijuana, because it is non-toxic.

Anything can be deadly if taken in sufficient quantities, even things that are normally vital for life like oxygen and water, so I'm a bit leery about anything being "impossible to overdose on".

There are no recorded cases of death by marijuana overdose. Sure, you'd probably kill someone if you pumped them full of pot, but they'd actually die from some physiological damage not related to the drug itself. Same with pure LSD. You cannot overdose on that either. It is not a toxic chemical like alcohol and many prescription medicines.

[Mightysword]

I admit don't know much about the technicality behind it, but ever since it was legalized in Colorado there have been many case reported on marijuana poisoning due to overdose, usually from consuming infused food.

https://www.healthychildren.org/english ... ngers.aspx

but they'd actually die from some physiological damage not related to the drug itself

I think that's just a semantic argument. It's matter little in reality between someone get alcohol poisoning that cause their organs to fail, or someone get so high they start hallucinating and jump off a balcony.

[Observe]

I think that's just a semantic argument. It's matter little in reality between someone get alcohol poisoning that cause their organs to fail, or someone get so high they start hallucinating and jump off a balcony.

As an addiction specialist and consultant to Oregon Health and Science University, I know a little bit about this subject.

If someone is so unstable that they will jump off a balcony, that person has other issues and should not be ingesting substances that affect their sense of reality. At least they should not be doing so, without people to support them in an appropriate setting.

I said that marijuana is non-toxic. That means you cannot die of overdose from the active ingredients. This according to a huge body of scientific medical evidence and research.

We all know there are many people who are opposed to marijuana for various reasons and there have been many lies and much misinformation promulgated by so-called 'authorities' that have some other agenda than truth. These are the reasons why it was made illegal and why it has taken so long for science to prevail.

Another huge misinformation is calling marijuana an addictive substance. It is not. There are zero physical withdrawal symptoms when someone stops ingesting marijuana. Psychological dependency is a different matter.

Withdrawal from alcohol on the other hand, can be extremely dangerous. Worse than heroin withdrawal. It is not uncommon for alcoholics to die when they try to stop drinking. I've witnessed this myself on more than one occasion.