Legaliiize It!

[DEFCON]

Regardless of our respective positions, I think we all could agree, the approach to dealing with marijuana has been a miserable failure!

The choice is, continue with more of the same and cloud the issue with largely useless data, the product of 'study data smoke', for another thirty + years, or change the direction presently followed at law dramatically.

[DEFCON]

Breathing the air, drinking the water and eating mass produced foods can also lead to developmental problems in the young.

[Mitch Cronin]

Despite the users who claim that marijuana has no ill effects and that it should be legalized, thus making it easier to obtain (just like tobacco), it appears that the facts are otherwise.

My goodness you're quick to accept as "fact" some of what you read.... I'd like to know, of those whopping 97 people in the study (which I could find no mention of in anything other than Sun media publications - so where, I wonder was this "study" published?-),

... how many developed these abnormalities? ... in any case, that's a pretty hefty claim considering such a small sampling.... especially with no attendant data.

[boestar]

my feeling is that it is better for you than tobacco due to all of the added chemicals in commercial cigarettes.

you are still screwing with your brain though

[boestar]

Aspertame causes more harm to the human brain that cannabis

[Mitch Cronin]

Where did I say I was dismissing it?

"Smith stressed that it does not prove cause-and-effect" ... The authors of the study have made no claim that they've established any "facts" whatsoever, so I'm not sure why you would.

Also perhaps worthy of note... I'm not sure anyone in this thread meant to be talking about chronic, heavy users.

Ideally, researchers would follow children from a time before they ever started using, through a period of use, and into adult years to track brain and cognition changes.

Yes indeed! That would be informative.

[Mitch Cronin]

There was some dismissal in my tone alright, but it was a dismissal of your presentation of "facts". You'll obviously not agree, but to my eye, you did misrepresent a few lines of text about a rather small study of "heavy users" -- " 10 people with a history of cannabis use disorder, 15 with a history of cannabis use disorder and a diagnosis of schizophrenia", as if there were new "facts" related to the earlier discussion, to be found therein.

I have no problem with keeping an open eye to new research... I welcome all knowledge gained through careful study. .... But I don't like seeing nonsense of any kind passed off as anything other than what it is.

[Mitch Cronin]

Geez Malcolm, I didn't know you had a vested interest in this. Pardon me. Y'see? You never can tell who might have a stash in his dresser.

[chockalicious]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^The I know you are but what am I comeback, what's next? I am rubber and you're glue

[IFG]

Hi, Malcolm - Re:

.... In my opinion, where there is smoke there is likely to be fire ....

.... maybe, but not much to indicate what started it. You persist in posting this sort of, at best, arguable research, compounding that with some cherry-picked quotes. Mr. Smith indeed suggests correlations, as you're quick to note, but is, himself, in your own extract, also clear he has not shown cause. C'mon, Malcolm, you know that difference perfectly well. And re:

.... Of course we are looking at the issue from difference sides of the fence ..... vested interest in getting it legalized vs at best no desire to see it legalized.

So finally, the real agenda. Well, as some of us have been noting all along, the thread was never about a posit of any virtue in smoking marijuana, it was always about the (un)wisdom of criminalizing it. Nobody here is recommending weed (and I'm sure nobody would be thrilled about their kids trying it out), so all this confirmation-biased trawling of the internet is a non-sequitur. I'll ask once again - Have you any studies that support the current punitive treatment of cannabis users?

And if you truly believe that current laws are an effective solution, would your inclination to sanctions endorse a restoration of criminality for alcohol consumption and distribution, or an extension of same to tobacco? Would you like a couple of hundred links to studies on the primary and secondary effects of those substances?

Cheers, IFG

p.s. No "vested interest" here, either

[FireFox]

I've watched first hand, drugs and alcohol destroy marriages, careers, families and communities. If making access easier is the answer....then heaven help us all.........

the thread was never about a posit of any virtue in smoking marijuana, it was always about the (un)wisdom of criminalizing it. Nobody here is recommending weed (and I'm sure nobody would be thrilled about their kids trying it out),

Dropzone, absolutely.

IFG, you have got to be kidding.

There's absolutely no reason to beat up on Malcolm over this. This thread was started by Mitch who, I believe has repeatedly posted for the legalization of weed. That to me would be a RECOMMENDATION...no?

I grew up in the 60's so any attempt to dismiss grass as not being a "gateway" drug is absolutely horses**t in my opinion. I've seen first hand what it can do to families and believe me it isn't pretty.

So IFG are you also advocating that we add grass to the list of society's legal vices?

[IFG]

Malcolm - Was somebody not obeying the law? or advocating that? Stop with the straw men already! & I'm not sure where you go with the homilies about changing the law. In a small way and in a small place, is that not what Mitch is undertaking.

I didn't mean to demean the research, such as it was. I'm sure the observations were well-made, and Smith seems careful not to over-reach in his conclusions. What is arguable is whether it supports the conclusions you seem to draw from it - not congruent with those made by Smith himself! Notwithstanding that, sloppy grammar on my part, I'll try to properly attach the adjectives to the words I mean to modify

GateKeeper - Re: "That to me would be a RECOMMENDATION...no" - You have got to be kidding! Seriously, not to me it isn't. e.g. I do not support criminalization of tobacco, would advocate it be abandoned in the unfortunate circumstance it ever happens AND certainly do not recommend its usage. Not every undesirable behavior is well-mitigated by criminal sanctions.

I'm a child of the sixties also, saw much more damage from the justice system's treatment of 'soft' drug use than from the use itself, so apparently our mileages vary with regard to that. There is no complete absence from harm from many activities, but there are also harmful side-effects from misguided remedies. There have been many lives damaged by criminal prosecutions too. It is true that a small subset of recreational soft-drug users take wrong turns. I don't want to trivialize the horrible stories that arise from that, but for any rational conclusion, the study of such lives as are ruined by 'soft' drugs would have to be controlled by data on lives ruined in other ways in the general population; the propensity for some folk to self-destructive behavior is well-known.

More to the point, with criminalization, there is a far more obvious "gateway" into general criminality than to harder drugs. IAC, the "gateway-to-hard-drugs" theory is far from proven, and itself regarded as horses**t by many (see correlation & causality). My own observational experience certainly doesn't support it.

It's late out here on the 'Rock', just a quick reply - no time for digging up requested citations, maybe later?

Cheers, IFG

[CanadaEH]

Does anyone know the demographics of those for and against the legalization of weed? I'd be curious to know.

[Mitch Cronin]

funny Mitch but since you authored this thread , I would suppose it was you.

Malcolm, do you really think that's a fair supposition? Because I advocate its legalization, I must therefore have a "vested interest"?? Is that how your logic works?

Re. your last sentence: "As for if you might have a stash, I would not like to conjecture and possibly hang you out to dry. " I'm getting the distinct impression you'd dearly LOVE to hang me out to dry, if you could.

[Mitch Cronin]

Mitch, you are the one who suggested that I might have a stash, I was simply replying in kind. You threw the first rock, not me.

? your "vested interest" crack was the "rock" I was responding to. You stated that one of us had a vested interest.... since I knew it wasn't me, I just tossed it back at you.

Are we done now? Or are you still having fun?

[Mitch Cronin]

In a world where blind obedience to "the law" can lead to horrors like the worst of human conflict over the ages, I'm very glad for people who teach their children to question things.

[DEFCON]

I don't know about your world Malcolm, but when I was a kid, pretty much everyone's parents legally consumed alcohol. As it was, we teens did our very best to illegally acquire the intoxicant, either from home sources, or by other means. Why is pot any different?

To each his own I guess, but I think I'd prefer that my kid, or that kids in general smoke pot as opposed to drinking alcohol. A 16 year old teen from Texas with a bit of a drinking problem made the news the other day. Apparently, he was a regular boozer and responsible for a car crash in which he killed four people. It's not to say that bad stuff can't, won't, doesn't, or hasn't happened following the consumption of pot, but I think the record will show, negative consequences are a whole lot more likely to follow teens that are boozing it up.

When it comes to the law and detection devices, I'm sure you're aware that a breath test is not an essential ingredient to the laying of an impaired driving charge against someone. That being the case, shouldn't / couldn't the law take a similar approach with pot?

[chockalicious]

I think some people need to work on their reading cvomprehension. Calling for legalization of weed is not the same as recommending it. Getting it legalized means that hopefully the justice system can focus on more important issues instead of farting around with pot problems.

[chockalicious]

Seems relevent to the conversation: http://www.businessinsider.com.au/portugal-drug-policy-decriminalization-works-2012-7

The resulting effect: a drastic reduction in addicts, with Portuguese officials and reports highlighting that this number, at 100,000 before the new policy was enacted, has been halved in the following 10 years. Portugal’s drug usage rates are now among the lowest of EU member states, according to the same report.

One more outcome: a lot less sick people. Drug related diseases including STDs and overdoses have been reduced even more than usage rates, which experts believe is the result of the government offering treatment with no threat of legal ramifications to addicts.

[IFG]

.... The research in the article I posted is hardly arguable based on what you may think. Perhaps you can provide scientific data that refutes that research and if so please feel free to post it. So I will turn your question back to you

Have you any studies that disprove the current treatment of illegal cannabis users or do you just believe that the law of the land should be open to be broken by those who don't like the law? Cherry picking which law to obey is plainly wrong.

Hello again, Malcolm. I responded briefly to some of your comments above, and, along with others, again reject your false conflation between advocating change and legal disobedience. That's nonsense and I think you know it. Unfortunately in my post, I did undertake to revisit your challenge for evidence to support my own arguments. I loath debate by data-dumping, particularly when some of it is carelessly cited and misrepresents the conclusions of the authors, but will try make good on my rash commitment. Just a couple (without spending too, too much time on this ), and I don't expect anything I present to be compelling to you. I have made a little effort to stick to credible sources, and honour their conclusions tho', & I think they both refrain from polemic-ism and present balanced information and commentary/recommendation.

The CMA has commented in the past on this. Their recommendations are cautious and do come with qualifications, but the finding on the efficacy of punative regimes is pretty clear:

(A Public Health Perspective on Cannabis and Other Illegal Drugs - CMA Submission to the Senate Committee on Illegal Drugs)

The CMA recommends::

.... "3. Decriminalization: The severity of punishment for simple possession and personal use of cannabis should be reduced with the removal of criminal sanctions. The CMA believes that resources currently devoted to combating simple marijuana possession through the criminal law could be diverted to public health strategies, particularly for youth. To the degree that having a criminal record limits employment prospects the impact on health status is profound. Poorer employment prospects lead to poorer health. Use of a civil violation, such as a fine, is a potential alternative. However, decriminalization should only be pursued as part of a comprehensive national illegal drug strategy that would include a cannabis cessation program."

[http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/SEN/Committee/371/ille/presentation/haddad-e.pdf]

And a little something from every conservative's favourite study-house:

(Marijuana Growth in British Columbia - A FRASER INSTITUTE OCCASIONAL PAPER)

""The analysis reveals how widespread is the use of marijuana in Canada and how extensively it is produced in British Columbia. Consequently, the broader social question becomes less whether or not we approve or disapprove of local production, but rather who shall enjoy the spoils. As it stands now, growers and distributors pay some of the costs and reap all of the benefits of the multi-billion dollar marijuana industry while the non-marijuana-smoking taxpayer sees only costs. Alcohol prohibition in the US expanded organized crime in North America. Removing alcohol prohibition generated many problems, but none like those afflicting society in the days of Al Capone and his ilk. Removing the prohibition on marijuana production would permit society to replace today’s gift of revenue to organized crime with (at the very least) an additional source of revenue for government coffers."

[http://www.scribd.com/doc/19711390/Marijuana-Growth-in-British-Columbia]

Cheers, IFG

[Mitch Cronin]

So to summon up,

... Ummm .... Errrr. ... ...oh crap, never mind...

Just so long as dope don't make fer no illiterates in this cuntree.... it's all good, ain't it?

[Mitch Cronin]

.... they haven't got a little icon with a guy pissing himself laughing in here!

[Mitch Cronin]

[IFG]

.... Perhaps you can provide scientific data that refutes that research and if so please feel free to post it. So I will turn your question back to you

Have you any studies that disprove the current treatment of illegal cannabis users or do you just believe that the law of the land should be open to be broken by those who don't like the law? Cherry picking which law to obey is plainly wrong.

IFG your quotes, neither article addresses the consequences and most importantly the effect on teens.

As far as I am concerned adults can to go heck in what ever fashion they wish, on the other hand we must protect those who are not yet adults.

So to summon up, if the legalization of POT would ensure that only adults would use it with no harm to society in general, then go for it.

Still waiting for proof that the article I quoted re the negative effect of POT on teens is bogus.......

Re: "bogus": Malcolm, are you simply being obtuse? Or have you even read my other responses?

Re "quotes": Bobbing and weaving, aren't you? But honestly, I'm not taking assignments from you, Malcolm, and when I do meet a request, perhaps a polite acknowledgement? rather than a petulant new demand? IAC, in terms of the overall health perspective, the CMA report explicitly gives the greater weight to harm from criminalization, even as it is very mindful of the possible effects from use (as was/would-be the case with booze etc).

"Decriminalization: The severity of punishment for simple possession and personal use of

cannabis should be reduced with the removal of criminal sanctions. The CMA believes that

resources currently devoted to combating simple marijuana possession through the criminal

law could be diverted to public health strategies, particularly for youth. To the degree that

having a criminal record limits employment prospects the impact on health status is

profound. Poorer employment prospects lead to poorer health"

Once again, nobody is stating here that there are absolutely no ill effects (although they may be grossly overstated in some quarters), the argument is that criminal sanctions are a wasteful and counter-productive (non-)mitigation.

I think it's even beginning to sink in with the current government. While well short of proposing a decriminalization, fine-based sanction is a tiny step in the right direction (IMO), and the Harperites seem to be giving that consideration.

You may be on the wrong side of history here, Malcolm

Cheers, IFG

[IFG]

.... But I can support the proposal to ticket users who flaunt the law rather than charge them under the criminal code as that will still serve as some deterrent for teens that may want to try the weed. As far as those who illegally sell the weed , they should continue to face the full force of the law. (give you do the crime, you do the time).

OK, but Malcolm, you're the one flaunting the law here - or did you mean flouting?

Cheers, IFG