Marijuana Prohibition - Where do you stand?

[EverfresH15]

http://www.cnn.com/shows/high-profits

Good show.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

I'm not going to lie, this is the kind of thing that resonates with me on the issue so much more than scientific journals. I just find it hard to believe that there won't be more people driving high or just generally being high and more youths being high.

Crap, now I got drawn back in. Thanks Dion.

See the major problem here is you basically have to support banning alcohol, and also prescription drugs, because they are far more dangerous than pot. So your rational for being fine with alcohol is essnetially it's already legal and pot isn't, so keep things the way they are.

But if we didn't change stupid, outdated, destructive or archaic laws, we'd still have women without the right to vote, blacks as 3/5 a person in the US, slavery etc...I'm sure there were more than a few people who wanted the status quo on those. Thankfully they were wrong. The amount of money that is pissed away annually to policing and imprison pot is absurd, and that doesn't even include the money that could be earned from legalization.

When people talk about "government waste", pot prohibition is one of the largest wastes there is. All that money spent, and pot use has not gone down in any significant manor. To reference Einstein in a pot discussion, if you spend billions over the years and get nothing about it, its insanity to keep spending billions more expecting different results.

[AFireInside]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

I'm not going to lie, this is the kind of thing that resonates with me on the issue so much more than scientific journals. I just find it hard to believe that there won't be more people driving high or just generally being high and more youths being high.

Crap, now I got drawn back in. Thanks Dion.

Except the stats in that article are meaningless without more data. Absolutely meaningless.

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

There are a few road side tests available. From what I read, there is a saliva test that police in England use to determine if a driver is intoxicated with marijuana. Basically, it is like licking a popcicle stick.

I think it is more of a presence detected or not detected kind of test though, which would be good since the legal limit for driving should be zero IMO.

Watch the dental health of potheads increase exponentially from brushing their teeth 14 times a day.

[Thor]

Yep these studies are intended as is the long tradition of those anti drug agencies to be dishonest and outright lie to scare people.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

I'm not going to lie, this is the kind of thing that resonates with me on the issue so much more than scientific journals. I just find it hard to believe that there won't be more people driving high or just generally being high and more youths being high.

Crap, now I got drawn back in. Thanks Dion.

That's like saying you're more convinced by regional reports on weather than academic journals when it comes to climate change.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

See the major problem here is you basically have to support banning alcohol, and also prescription drugs, because they are far more dangerous than pot. So your rational for being fine with alcohol is essnetially it's already legal and pot isn't, so keep things the way they are.

No you don't. It is entirely possible to have the conversation separately and look at each one individually. It just isn't very convenient for anyone.

Not for the pro-legalize crowd because, as we've seen here, when societal concerns are raised it is soo easy to just say "well, why not alcohol then too because its a drug and its worse".

Not for the anti-legalize crowd because, as we've seen here, no one (i.e. me) has an answer to "why pot but not alcohol".

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

See the major problem here is you basically have to support banning alcohol, and also prescription drugs, because they are far more dangerous than pot. So your rational for being fine with alcohol is essnetially it's already legal and pot isn't, so keep things the way they are.

But if we didn't change stupid, outdated, destructive or archaic laws, we'd still have women without the right to vote, blacks as 3/5 a person in the US, slavery etc...I'm sure there were more than a few people who wanted the status quo on those. Thankfully they were wrong. The amount of money that is pissed away annually to policing and imprison pot is absurd, and that doesn't even include the money that could be earned from legalization.

When people talk about "government waste", pot prohibition is one of the largest wastes there is. All that money spent, and pot use has not gone down in any significant manor. To reference Einstein in a pot discussion, if you spend billions over the years and get nothing about it, its insanity to keep spending billions more expecting different results.

Einstein never said it nor is it the definition of insanity.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by rubecube

That's like saying you're more convinced by regional reports on weather than academic journals when it comes to climate change.

Which academic studies show that legalization/decriminalization leads to lower use among the general population, lower use among youths, and lower instances of marijuana related DUIs?

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

I'm not going to lie, this is the kind of thing that resonates with me on the issue so much more than scientific journals. I just find it hard to believe that there won't be more people driving high or just generally being high and more youths being high.

Crap, now I got drawn back in. Thanks Dion.

But the governor was opposed to legalization before it was legalized. Dion's post makes it sound like his position changed from pro-legalization to regret over legalization. That's untrue. His position is unchanged. The post that is resonating with you was meaningless.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

Which academic studies show that legalization/decriminalization leads to lower use among the general population, lower use among youths, and lower instances of marijuana related DUIs?

To be honest, all of these things are likely to increase as a result of legalization. I don't think anyone is saying that these things will decrease. It's more that people are going use it anyway, we waste a terrible amount of money trying to fight it which can be reclaimed, and can gain tax revenue from it while opening up more studies into it's effects both negative and positive (many places are not even allowed to do tests on the positive because of it's illegality).

The problem with that in this debate is that a lot of that may be superficial; meaning the reported use increases, that doesn't mean actual use increases.

You will always have an increase in rec use. Whether that's people who didn't do it because it was illegal, or didn't because they can't smoke but edibles are available, or whatever. More people will use it, and I think most places show a very moderate increase in rec use after legalization.

However, it will also increase how readily someone admits to using it. If you did a survey of how many people consume alcohol and how many consume pot as it stands now, the people answering "no" to using alcohol are likely telling the truth. The people answering "no" to using MJ have legitimate reasons to lie. Just like do if they go to a doctors office. My doctor asks if I'm a smoker, I conveniently let myself think he is referring to cigarettes and so I say no. But that's not true, because I smoke MJ. I don't think he's ever asked me if I smoke weed. If he did I would say yes and there would be a statistic on that. But if I was afraid of what it may mean if I say yes, I might say no, which is the avenue many take when using illegal substances.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

No you don't. It is entirely possible to have the conversation separately and look at each one individually. It just isn't very convenient for anyone.

Not for the pro-legalize crowd because, as we've seen here, when societal concerns are raised it is soo easy to just say "well, why not alcohol then too because its a drug and its worse".

Not for the anti-legalize crowd because, as we've seen here, no one (i.e. me) has an answer to "why pot but not alcohol".

Ok well, let's look at them seperately shall we?

Alcohol
Addictive
Causes multiple diseases and illnesses
Damages organs
Gateway to other drugs
Involved in commission of 40% of all crime
Major driver of domestic violence
Drinking and driving
Leads to eating at Dennys

Marijuana
Addictive
Causes multiple diseases and illnesses
Damages organs
Gateway to other drugs
Involved in ensuring Funions actually sell
Major driver of bad comedies being produced
Driving stoned
Leads to eating at Dennys

I'm sorry but that's why they're compared. They are remarkably similar in adverse effects. Like peas in a pod , except alcohol has a few worse things going for it. So I'm sorry, but if you think pot is evil, you have to think similar thoughts about alcohol. Alcohol is almost universally agreed as being worse and more dangerous.

So I suppose you must answer that: Why is it ok for something more dangerous and harmful to be legal than something that isn't as dangerous or harmful? But you've already shown you'll ignore actual evidence in favour of anecdotal stories, so what is there to talk about? Sucks you'll ignore actual evidence, but you've clearly made up your mind on this issue. And that's fine, but you've been called out mostly for using very poor information as your rational for your opinion. Mostly because there aren't many good arguments left to keep it illegal.

[Regorium]

The problem with that argument is that it works perfectly fine for the other way too.

What about cocaine?

Addictive
Causes multiple diseases and illnesses
Damages organs
Gateway to other drugs
Involved in commission of very little crime (mostly white collar stuff)
Driver of domestic violence
Driving while high
Leads to strip clubs

The issue is that you've drawn the line somewhere past marijuana, and Freq has drawn the line before marijuana. I think Freq's position is absolutely legitimate, and it'll depend on whether it's what most people want or not.

For the purposes of discussion, where's your line in the sand? What substance is the "okay this is too much, this should stay illegal" one for you?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

Which academic studies show that legalization/decriminalization leads to lower use among the general population, lower use among youths, and lower instances of marijuana related DUIs?

The marijuana findings are particularly noteworthy given that Colorado and Washington state implemented full-scale retail marijuana markets this year, and Oregon, Alaska and Washington, D.C., voters opted to do the same. A central tenet of legalization opponents, from present-day prohibitionists like Andy Harris all the way back to Richard Nixon, has been that loosening restrictions on marijuana will "send the wrong" message to youngsters and lead to an explosion in teen use.

Harris sums up the mindset best in a recent appearance at the Heritage Foundation: "Relaxing [marijuana] laws clearly leads to more teenage drug use. It should be intuitively obvious to everyone that if you legalize marijuana for adults, more children will use marijuana because the message that it's dangerous will be blunted."

While it's a politically potent message -- nobody wants to see more kids doing drugs -- there's a substantial body of research showing that teen pot use hasn't risen in the states that have legalized medical marijuana. In 2014, a year when marijuana was all over the news and national attitudes toward the drug are relaxing, teen use actually trended downward.

Or, look at it from the other side: In the early 1990s the federal drug war was in full swing. But teen marijuana use spiked sharply during that period. It didn't start falling until the late '90s, when the first states began implementing medical marijuana laws.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/w...ates-legalize/

Will pot use increase? There’s little evidence internationally to suggest a surge in use, at least any more than it has as an easily obtainable illegal substance. The 2002 Senate report concluded: “We have not legalized cannabis and we have one of the highest rates [of use] in the world. Countries adopting a more liberal policy have, for the most part, rates of usage lower than ours, which stabilized after a short period of growth.”

The Netherlands, where marijuana is available in hundreds of adult-only coffee shops, is a case in point. The 2012 United Nations World Drug Report, using its own sources, pegs the level of use there at just 7.7 per cent of those aged 15 to 64. The U.S. has the seventh-highest rate of pot smokers, 14.1 per cent, while Canada ranks eighth at 12.7 per cent. Spain and Italy, which have decriminalized possession for all psychoactive drugs, are interesting contrasts. Cannabis use in Italy is 14.6 per cent, while Spain, at 10.6 per cent, is lower than the U.S. or Canada.

http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/w...ize-marijuana/

The statistics appear to be that consumption of prohibited products goes down once they are legitimized.

[peter12]

I am probably one of the few prohibitionists on this board. From personal experience, and common sense empiricism, it has a profound effect on an individual's mental well-being, probably has an undisclosed impact upon the likelihood of developing serious psychotic illnesses later in life, and is the cause of so much wasted time.

The fact that this scheme is being peddled as a resource-generator by big corporations is enough to make me skeptical.

The legalization of marijuana has nothing to do with the legalization of alcohol. Just because one poison is allowed to run rampant, why allow another to do the same?

That said, I believe that anyone of moral sensibility should remain ostensibly opposed to the prison farms of the United States filled with small amount possession offenders.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

So I suppose you must answer that: Why is it ok for something more dangerous and harmful to be legal than something that isn't as dangerous or harmful?

I don't know.

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

But you've already shown you'll ignore actual evidence in favour of anecdotal stories, so what is there to talk about? Sucks you'll ignore actual evidence,

No, I've shown that I don't care enough about the issue to look into it more and have clearly stated as much.

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

...but you've clearly made up your mind on this issue.

No I haven't. Nor do I care to put the effort in to making an informed decision. Which is why I said that I'd abstain from a referendum.

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

And that's fine, but you've been called out mostly for using very poor information as your rational for your opinion.

Yup, by myself more than anyone.

I'm not here barking down anyone's throats, nor am I asking anyone to stop barking down mine. I'm just participating in the conversation and contributing my opinion and clearly stating what (little) it is based on.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by peter12

I am probably one of the few prohibitionists on this board. From personal experience, and common sense empiricism, it has a profound effect on an individual's mental well-being, probably has an undisclosed impact upon the likelihood of developing serious psychotic illnesses later in life, and is the cause of so much wasted time.

The fact that this scheme is being pedaled as a resource-generator by big corporations is enough to make me skeptical.

The legalization of marijuana has nothing to do with the legalization of alcohol. Just because one poison is allowed to run rampant, why allow another to do the same?

That said, I believe that anyone of moral sensibility should remain ostensibly opposed to the prison farms of the United States filled with small amount possession offenders.

What he said.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by peter12

I am probably one of the few prohibitionists on this board. From personal experience, and common sense empiricism, it has a profound effect on an individual's mental well-being, probably has an undisclosed impact upon the likelihood of developing serious psychotic illnesses later in life, and is the cause of so much wasted time.

The fact that this scheme is being pedaled as a resource-generator by big corporations is enough to make me skeptical.

The legalization of marijuana has nothing to do with the legalization of alcohol. Just because one poison is allowed to run rampant, why allow another to do the same?

That said, I believe that anyone of moral sensibility should remain ostensibly opposed to the prison farms of the United States filled with small amount possession offenders.

So you're against legalization of alcohol as well then? (not saying this is a bad thing, if you're against booze, that's fine, to each their own).

You say you are prohibitionist, then list a few personal reasons for being against it, all fine. Then you mention one of the main reasons for legalization (revenue) as a "scheme" when it's pretty much just logic. There's a multi-billion dollar black market for this that we want to bring into the actual market. It's one of our province's largest industries and it's not on the books. Then you say how you're against people being jailed for this, the other major reason people want it legalized.

So what side are you on?

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Regorium

The problem with that argument is that it works perfectly fine for the other way too.

What about cocaine?

Addictive
Causes multiple diseases and illnesses
Damages organs
Gateway to other drugs
Involved in commission of very little crime (mostly white collar stuff)
Driver of domestic violence
Driving while high
Leads to strip clubs

The issue is that you've drawn the line somewhere past marijuana, and Freq has drawn the line before marijuana. I think Freq's position is absolutely legitimate, and it'll depend on whether it's what most people want or not.

For the purposes of discussion, where's your line in the sand? What substance is the "okay this is too much, this should stay illegal" one for you?

I suppose my line is based on science. Drugs like heroin and meth and cocaine have scientifically been proven to be significantly more dangerous and damaging than pot. No one is saying pot is like vitamin C, but more a scientific perspective, it is at the bottom of the drug totem pole. Cigarettes and alcohol are scientifically proven to be worse than pot. But years and years of hammering home falsehoods by anti-drug advocates (and alcohol and pharma companies not wanting competition) have made pot a much bigger boogie man than it really is.

Also lets not kid ourselves, heroin is already legal (hello Oxy) and so is meth (hi Adderall). And they're abused far more than marijuana is. But they have big lobbies and pot doesn't.

[Bownesian]

Pot is pretty much decriminalized in Canada because possession is so rarely prosecuted and it is so widely consumed.

I voted legalize it because I think it's the best thing to do as far as a public policy, but I'm very much in the don't care category in a lot of ways (i.e. this is not a vote driver for me in the slightest).