Should US Legalize Marijuana?

Guybrush · 02-26-2010, 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lucifer_sam

Uh...overdoses on what?

Because suggesting that decriminalization of marijuana led to overdoses on other drugs is a horrible post-hoc argument.

Possibly, although it was supposed to be all of them (including drug-crime related murders) together, the source being the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration. As far as I know, the number of overdoses alone have not gone up. Neither am I against decriminalization. The argument was meant to counter the assumption that legalizing marijuana means less market/less organized crime.

edit :

If anyone's interested, there's an official report from 2007 about the effects of decriminalization of drugs in Portugal.

THE EFFECTS OF DECRIMINALIZATION OF DRUG USE IN PORTUGAL

lucifer_sam · 02-26-2010, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tore

Possibly, although it was supposed to be all of them (including drug-crime related murders) together, the source being the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration. As far as I know, the number of overdoses alone have not gone up. Neither am I against decriminalization. The argument was meant to counter the assumption that legalizing marijuana means less market/less organized crime.

edit :

If anyone's interested, there's an official report from 2007 about the effects of decriminalization of drugs in Portugal.

THE EFFECTS OF DECRIMINALIZATION OF DRUG USE IN PORTUGAL

The DEA isn't a reliable source for information regarding legalization / decriminalization statistics. Their objective is to retain the funding they receive from the federal government, so there's an absurd conflict of interest when they investigate decriminalization issues. How would it reflect upon their budget (read: JOBS) if marijuana was legalized / decriminalized?

However, the Beckley Foundation actually seems like a reliable, impartial and comprehensive source for information. And if you read through it, there's actually a lot of positive effects from Portugal's revision to drug policy.

Guybrush · 02-26-2010, 12:02 PM

The US Department of Justice puts out misleading information? Not saying I don't believe you, but that actually sucks quite a bit.

Either way, about the report - you interpret it positively, but it's actually quite indecisive on whether it was a good move or not. It concludes that there are indeed positive effects, but not as much as expected. It mentions a growing concern about the message decriminalization may be sending to new users and towards the end mentions that it's popularity may be waning and that it could go either way in the future. I still think some sort of decriminalization rather than legalization might be a better answer to some of the problems in America.

Freebase Dali · 02-26-2010, 05:52 PM

@ Tore:

Quote:

You seem to think of alcohol as a paralell to pot, but it's not. Of course bootleggers and mafias had a hard time on the legal market because they did not make Cognac, Gammel Dansk, Aquavit, Scotch, bitters and the multitude of other distilled liquors and alcoholic beverages out there. All they could offer on the legal market was a tiny, tiny piece of the variety of booze available, probably not even at a very high quality. They were not really very able when they had to compete.

How is that not a parallel if you apply the same situation to pot prohibition? And why would you think it would be any different? Once alcohol prohibition ended in the US in 1933, the mafia lost its alcohol income plain and simple. Furthermore, you don't seem to know a lot about marijuana to begin with if you think imported pot is anywhere NEAR the quality and potency and desirability of a crop from a well made hydroponic lab, of which there are many in the US. So why do pot cartels make so much money off us? Because their product is extremely cheap, even at the expense of quality, and that often leads the market.
If pot were legalized in the US and you could start your own business selling pot you yourself grow, then cartels across the border would have to do A LOT to change the quality of their product, while keeping their prices more attractive than domestic prices. I can tell you right now that it would be economically infeasible for them and wouldn't happen. The competition would be overwhelmingly uneven. You'd know this if you had any background in the consumer side of marijuana. There would simply be a superior domestic product without the shipping and smuggling costs, and availability would drive domestic costs even lower. Economics 101. And in the regulation side of things, if the US mandated that pot was not to enter the US from foreign countries, then you have even more reason to buy domestic product, and cartels would have even less reason to smuggle.
I honestly don't understand how you're not seeing a correlation between the two concepts.

Quote:

From what I've read from american history and pot, the amount of users rose drastically when drug laws were softened in the 70s when several states decriminalized and Alaska legalized and if that would happen again, it would mean a vast expansion of the market - a scenario that has also taken place in other countries. That could easily help make up for loss of customers to other producers.

Of course the amount of users will rise. It's freaking not illegal to use something, then people aren't going to have legal reservations about using it. You don't have to explain that to me.

Quote:

In a world of legal pot where growers are abundant, people are gonna sell (taxation or not) and the government will have no way of regulating that market. Cartels and other exploiters/criminals could thrive in such an environment and use it to push harder drugs which would still be illegal. I'm sure they'd love the opportunity.

Yes, an organized criminal group who's main income is derived from drug sales would take a hit from the loss of pot sales... And would try to make up for it by focusing efforts in the sale of other drugs. But you have to realize something... If you're a company and one of your products are lost and no longer in your inventory/demand, to maintain a margin of profit you will have to raise prices of your remaining inventory to compensate for the lost income. What this does is make it harder for the buyers of your other inventory to afford those products. You can either lower your profit margin or take the loss. In the case of drug cartels, the lost inventory is a pretty huge loss, and the lost customers due to higher prices can equal a high loss. So at least you know that you're putting a huge dent in their wallets, or shutting them down from that specific market, or both. Economics applies to drug cartels just like it applies to any other business. The same concepts are in play.

Quote:

In Netherlands after legalization, organized (and unorganized) crime increased drastically. The amount of users also increased, both for marijuana and harder drugs. Netherlands has also since become a large exporter of drugs to other countries, such as XTC pills. In Portugal, decriminalization led to an increase in users and drug-related deaths (homicides/suicides/overdoses). You should assume the same thing can happen in the US.

You do know Pot wasn't the only thing decriminalized right? I've actually been to Amsterdam and enjoyed it for several days before the more recent crackdown on shrooms and the many coffee houses, leading to a massive consolidation. The headshops there contained all the crap that's illegal in the states... 2cB and all its cousins, Salvia, Shrooms, and even peyote cacti. To pin crime increase on Marijuana in Netherlands specifically is something you're going to have to prove with specific statistics.
And if you can actually sit there and say the amount of marijuana users increased drastically in the Netherlands and NOT attribute it to the tourists who go there all the time for multiple purposes, then you're leaving out pertinent details. As for where the increase of crime is coming from, I would naturally ask for your statistics, but then I'd already naturally assume they came from the increase of tourism and the number of people going there, that contributed to the increase of instances, whether drug related or not.
I'm pretty sure if pot and shrooms were legal all over the world, Amsterdam would be a pretty quiet place. So using that as a comparative is wildly speculative.
As far as your Portugal comparison.. I'm going to have to ask you what drug you're talking about, because I can bet my life there hasn't been a weed overdose in the history of weed. Also, Ecstasy is illegal in Netherlands as well. That has nothing to do with decriminalization policy of pot in the US.

Quote:

This bit is quite manipulative because you write that negative effects of pot are at best debatable. Yes, in a way they are, but probably not in the way you think. What scientific studies show is that marijuana use does correlate positively with problems like anxiety, depression and schizophrenia.
What's debatable is why that is. People who are pro-legalization desperately want to believe that the marijuana is not a causal factor in all this, that it's just a trend that sick people like to smoke or at worst exacerbate their problems or cause "latent" illnesses to emerge. Exacerbation of such problems would be a very negative effect and so should anyways be taken into account when considering legalization.

If you want a scientific source, you could take a look at this recent paper :

Link : Cannabis use and risk of psychotic or affective mental health outcomes: a systematic review : The Lancet

First of all, The Lancet? The same folks who headed the horribly flawed Autism - Vaccine study in 98' and had to retract? Ok I'll let that slide and just concentrate on Marijuana, a highly controversial subject with plenty of political ramifications... Absolutely no influence there...

According to your source, fewer attempts were made to make a connection between smoking pot and Depression, Suicidal thoughts, and Anxiety... so they didn't include that in their interpretation... Aka, they couldn't find any links substantial enough. But what's convenient is that they were able to find a link between pot use and, get this, Psychosis. Do you know how broad of a term that is in terms of mental illness? Also, why is this report so vague? Please include statistics. We need to know the amount of people studied, and their respective usage, and resulting illnesses. (And not an umbrella "psychosis" term).

Quote:

Those who are undecided or pro-legalization should be aware that there is a massive amount of propaganda coming from your side of the debate which glorifies the effects legalization and decriminalization has had on other countries, that exaggerate positive scenarios as the only possible outcomes of legalization and say that marijuana does not have negative effects on mental health and more.
Of course there's some propaganda coming from the other side as well, but they tend to be way less fanatical about it (pro-legalization could be called a movement, but I don't think you can say the same about those who oppose) and either way, science and history has often produced results such as presented in the paper quoted above or in political reports.

There doesn't need to be any current propaganda against pot now days. Pot has been demonized since the early 1900's. It has been branded with evil long long before the effects of pot were even comprehended by the U.S. It is ingrained in the average American's mindset as a loser drug, a drug that will make you stupid, psychotic, a killer, a rapist, a washout no good nobody. This has been happening for years and years, my friend. We don't need any more "this is your brain on drugs" commercials... it's practically a part of our manipulated subconscious.
Government has literally made smoking pot a morally negative thing. We've actually allowed government to influence our very own morals. That's gonna stick for a long, long time before it's rectified.
Any propaganda the pro-pot side can put out wouldn't nearly equalize any belief system between the two sides for a long time.
I don't think you'll have to worry too much about that.

Guybrush · 02-26-2010, 08:22 PM

Freebase Dali, the cartels are viable market competitors because despite what you think about transportation costs and so on, they can easily make up for that by producing a lot for next to nothing. They can have acres upon acres of cannabis with people working for them for superlow wages and the same goes for other drugs like cocaine. These people are already incredibly rich and have a lot of power in their respective countries .. I think you're underestimating them. You also assume that their products will be crappy, but that seems a little naive to me. You don't think they can adapt to suit the market? What if they grow better stuff? What if they establish production in the states?

About your criticism against the source, the Lancet is the name of the journal. They don't hire people to do science. It's just one of the journals scientists can go to with their papers to get them on print.

As for the content, you critizise their use of the word "psychotic" when you think that's too broad. Actually, it has a specific meaning and furthermore, their conclusion is quite clear "we conclude that there is now sufficient evidence to warn young people that using cannabis could increase their risk of developing a psychotic illness later in life". That's not hard to understand. It's also a conclusion made by people with expertise who have spent a lot of time studying this. Although you don't have to believe them, you should be open to the fact that studying that is/was part of their job and they likely know more about marijuana than you do. Furthermore, maybe you missed it, but it's a review. They've studied other results and so it should be seen as a sort of consensus or summary of what several studies have come up with so far.

Don't be one of those who support science only up until the point where it says something they disagree with.

Here are some more studies :

Quote:

Recent research has clarified a number of important questions concerning adverse effects of cannabis on health. A causal role of acute cannabis intoxication in motor vehicle and other accidents has now been shown by the presence of measurable levels of Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in the blood of injured drivers in the absence of alcohol or other drugs, by surveys of driving under the influence of cannabis, and by significantly higher accident culpability risk of drivers using cannabis. Chronic inflammatory and precancerous changes in the airways have been demonstrated in cannabis smokers, and the most recent case-control study shows an increased risk of airways cancer that is proportional to the amount of cannabis use. Several different studies indicate that the epidemiological link between cannabis use and schizophrenia probably represents a causal role of cannabis in precipitating the onset or relapse of schizophrenia. A weaker but significant link between cannabis and depression has been found in various cohort studies, but the nature of the link is not yet clear. A large body of evidence now demonstrates that cannabis dependence, both behavioral and physical, does occur in about 7–10% of regular users, and that early onset of use, and especially of weekly or daily use, is a strong predictor of future dependence. Cognitive impairments of various types are readily demonstrable during acute cannabis intoxication, but there is no suitable evidence yet available to permit a decision as to whether long-lasting or permanent functional losses can result from chronic heavy use in adults. However, a small but growing body of evidence indicates subtle but apparently permanent effects on memory, information processing, and executive functions, in the offspring of women who used cannabis during pregnancy. In total, the evidence indicates that regular heavy use of cannabis carries significant risks for the individual user and for the health care system.

>> ScienceDirect - Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry : Adverse effects of cannabis on health: an update of the literature since 1996

Quote:

Cannabis seems to be a risk factor for the development of schizophrenia, mimicking the typical cognitive vulnerability. As an environmental factor, cannabis use has the potential for being influenced by interventions, thus indirectly having an effect on the development of schizophrenia. Accordingly, clinical implications (Moore et al., 2007) and public health implications (Arseneault et al., 2004a) have been suggested. A promising clinical intervention would be to monitor cannabis use in patients known to be vulnerable for psychosis, and help them to stay away from cannabis.

>> Cannabis Use and Cognition in Schizophrenia

Quote:

We propose that the use of cannabis leads to cognitive deficits of a similar nature to those seen in schizophrenia but of a lower magnitude. We further propose that the neurobiology underpinning the development of cognitive deficits in cannabis users may overlap with the neurobiological underpinnings of schizophrenia. We have reviewed a multitude of evidence that taken together could inform our understanding of the potential for cannabis use to trigger the onset of psychosis in vulnerable individuals and explain the exacerbation of symptoms in schizophrenia patients.

>> Cannabis and cognitive dysfunction: Parallels with endophenotypes of schizophrenia?

Quote:

After adjustment for age, sex, socioeconomic status, urbanicity, childhood trauma, predisposition for psychosis at baseline, and use of other drugs, tobacco, and alcohol, cannabis use at baseline increased the cumulative incidence of psychotic symptoms at follow up four years later (adjusted odds ratio 1.67, 95% confidence interval 1.13 to 2.46).

>> Prospective cohort study of cannabis use, predisposition for psychosis, and psychotic symptoms in young people -- Henquet et al. 330 (7481): 11 -- BMJ

Quote:

cannabis use appears to act as a risk factor in the onset of schizophrenia, espe-cially in vulnerable people, but also in people without prior history.

>> http://www.ukcia.org/research/RiskOf...izophrenia.pdf

I'm posting all this to prove a point. For every paper you criticize, discard or discredit, there are lots more backing up the same results. Believe me when I say I'm really just scratching the tip of the ice-berg here. I think you should acknowledge the possibility that these people might actually be on to something.

Freebase Dali · 02-27-2010, 12:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tore

Freebase Dali, the cartels are viable market competitors because despite what you think about transportation costs and so on, they can easily make up for that by producing a lot for next to nothing. They can have acres upon acres of cannabis with people working for them for superlow wages and the same goes for other drugs like cocaine. These people are already incredibly rich and have a lot of power in their respective countries .. I think you're underestimating them. You also assume that their products will be crappy, but that seems a little naive to me. You don't think they can adapt to suit the market? What if they grow better stuff? What if they establish production in the states?

About your criticism against the source, the Lancet is the name of the journal. They don't hire people to do science. It's just one of the journals scientists can go to with their papers to get them on print.

As for the content, you critizise their use of the word "psychotic" when you think that's too broad. Actually, it has a specific meaning and furthermore, their conclusion is quite clear "we conclude that there is now sufficient evidence to warn young people that using cannabis could increase their risk of developing a psychotic illness later in life". That's not hard to understand. It's also a conclusion made by people with expertise who have spent a lot of time studying this. Although you don't have to believe them, you should be open to the fact that studying that is/was part of their job and they likely know more about marijuana than you do. Furthermore, maybe you missed it, but it's a review. They've studied other results and so it should be seen as a sort of consensus or summary of what several studies have come up with so far.

Don't be one of those who support science only up until the point where it says something they disagree with.

Here are some more studies :

>> ScienceDirect - Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry : Adverse effects of cannabis on health: an update of the literature since 1996

>> Cannabis Use and Cognition in Schizophrenia

>> Cannabis and cognitive dysfunction: Parallels with endophenotypes of schizophrenia?

>> Prospective cohort study of cannabis use, predisposition for psychosis, and psychotic symptoms in young people -- Henquet et al. 330 (7481): 11 -- BMJ

>> http://www.ukcia.org/research/RiskOf...izophrenia.pdf

I'm posting all this to prove a point. For every paper you criticize, discard or discredit, there are lots more backing up the same results. Believe me when I say I'm really just scratching the tip of the ice-berg here. I think you should acknowledge the possibility that these people might actually be on to something.

I would, if you'd acknowledge the possibility that we might be on to the fact that pot prohibition is doing more harm than good.

Honestly, I can't understand how an intelligent human being can't see that much... It's sad. I really do feel sorry for you. A lot.

Neapolitan · 02-27-2010, 12:25 AM

Quote:

Several different studies indicate that the epidemiological link between cannabis use and schizophrenia probably represents a causal role of cannabis in precipitating the onset or relapse of schizophrenia. A weaker but significant link between cannabis and depression has been found in various cohort studies, but the nature of the link is not yet clear.
Read more: http://www.musicbanter.com/current-e...#ixzz0gi61vQXB

Is this cause by a direct effect of cannabis itself damaging the brain or a cascading effect of the drug on the brain, that could also be cause by other things? I heard in some cases of schizophrenia, the first time it occured was after that person's first sexual encounter. So are some people just predisposes to have those mental issue because of their genes and it is just the cannabis or sexual experience that triggers it in that part of the brain. (this is not a rebuttal to what you wrote, I'm just curious in a objective way to what really causes those problem.) Like with depression imo cannabis doesn't create but exacerbates the condition of depression.

My personal veiw is the brain is not only a organ of cells but also an electrical/chemical/hormonal computer (a want for a better word) and I wouldn't want to introduce any kind of drug in my body (e.g. cannabis) to upset the natural balance. I don't care if it sounds corny or whatever, I know enough instances where drugs disrupt people lives.

Freebase Dali · 02-27-2010, 12:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neapolitan

Is this cause by a direct effect of cannabis itself damaging the brain or a cascading effect of the drug on the brain, that could also be cause by other things? I heard in some cases of schizophrenia,the first time it occured was after that person's first sexual encounter. So are some people just predisposes to have those mental issue because of their genes and it is just the cannabis or sexual experience that triggers it in that part of the brain. (this is not a rebuttal to what you wrote, I'm just curious in a objective way to what really causes those problem.) Like with depression imo cannabis doesn't create but exacerbates the condition of depression.

My personal veiw is the brain is not only a organ of cells but also an electrical/chemical/hormonal computer (a want for a better word) and I wouldn't want to introduce any kind of drug in my body (e.g. cannabis) to upset the natural balance. I don't care if it sounds corny or whatever, I know enough instances where drugs disrupt people lives.

Who's brain are we talking about here?

Guybrush · 02-27-2010, 06:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freebase Dali

I would, if you'd acknowledge the possibility that we might be on to the fact that pot prohibition is doing more harm than good.

Honestly, I can't understand how an intelligent human being can't see that much... It's sad. I really do feel sorry for you. A lot.

I do and I did only a page back in response to Janzsoon's post.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tore

Because of conflicting information, it's hard from here to tell who really goes to jail for marijuana possession today - if it's people who's only crime is posession of marijuana or if those who go to jail are people with more on their records, such as traficking of harder drugs. I agree that sending otherwise innocent people in jail is extremely detrimental to society for the reasons you mention and if that really takes place, then that could change my no position into a maybe or perhaps even yes.

I just don't agree with the idea that it removes organized crime and that marijuana has little to no harmful effects on society. I also think once you legalize, it might be near impossible to go back should it prove to be negative because removing freedoms/rights by law in a modern democracy is not easy. I recognize that there are problems with a wasteful battle against drugs in the US which claims the lives or at least criminal records of some innocent victims, but one should look into alternatives such as decriminalization before you legalize. I believe legalization, while it may solve many of the current problems, comes with a bunch of new ones.

I'm not as much against it as you probably think.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neapolitan

Is this cause by a direct effect of cannabis itself damaging the brain or a cascading effect of the drug on the brain, that could also be cause by other things? I heard in some cases of schizophrenia, the first time it occured was after that person's first sexual encounter. So are some people just predisposes to have those mental issue because of their genes and it is just the cannabis or sexual experience that triggers it in that part of the brain. (this is not a rebuttal to what you wrote, I'm just curious in a objective way to what really causes those problem.) Like with depression imo cannabis doesn't create but exacerbates the condition of depression. My personal veiw is the brain is not only a organ of cells but also an electrical/chemical/hormonal computer (a want for a better word) and I wouldn't want to introduce any kind of drug in my body (e.g. cannabis) to upset the natural balance. I don't care if it sounds corny or whatever, I know enough instances where drugs disrupt people lives.

Well, as far as I know and I'm not an expert .. it runs in families and there's definetly a strong genetic component. It is caused by problems with your brain chemistry and I don't think you could ever get schizophrenic from cannabis without being predisposed. Although schizophrenia is a bit of an umbrella term, I don't think people in general can just get it without having a predisposition for it. I've talked with one guy who's schizophrenic and had tourettes syndrom and severe OCD. He'd make sounds uncontrollably, do little rituals just to get up the stairs (like walk halfway up, then down again, then up etc) and his parents were both mentally ill. I noticed he was calmer than he'd been the last time I'd seen him and so I asked him if he'd gotten any new medications and he said yeah, but that it was worst after puberty and that he also got better as he was getting older. The way he talked about it made it seem very clear that it was a problem with unfortunate biochemistry and not so much psychology.

I think marijuana can exacerbate or trigger "latent" schizophrenia because a lot of users struggle with anxieties and my guess is that it's the anxiety that does it, not marijuana itself. People who are not predisposed might suffer from anxiety, but would not develop schizophrenia. At least that's my personal hypothesis. Possibly, I'm wrong about a lot of it and if you're really curious, read some of the articles posted above.

~~Dirty~~ · 10-19-2010, 02:50 AM

I think it should be legalized.

The government could regulate it and make money off of it. They could put restrictions on it regarding public use and usage near schools or in the work place and stuff like that if they wanted.

Anything in excess is bad for you. Weed is no different. It's a non-addictive 'feel-good' drug. It just enhances everything. A lot of folks come home from work and kick back a few beers around the house or a glass of scotch. Is coming home and lighting a joint any different? Not really.

Allow people to grow on their own property. It's just a plant! Smoke within the confines of their own home and I don't see a problem.

The reason it's going to be awhile til it's legalized is because no politician is going to put their neck out there and risk their career by legalizing it. Too many old people would be outraged, not understanding what weed really is. As for health complications, I don't really see how that even plays into it. The government makes a KILLING off of cigarettes (literally and financially) and alcohol is also bad for you. The government doesn't really care about your health. They want you on THEIR drugs. Just look at the pharmaceutical market and how prescription pills have boomed over the decades.

02-26-2010, 12:02 PM	#313 (permalink)
Guybrush Juicious Maximus III Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Scabb Island Posts: 6,525	The US Department of Justice puts out misleading information? Not saying I don't believe you, but that actually sucks quite a bit. Either way, about the report - you interpret it positively, but it's actually quite indecisive on whether it was a good move or not. It concludes that there are indeed positive effects, but not as much as expected. It mentions a growing concern about the message decriminalization may be sending to new users and towards the end mentions that it's popularity may be waning and that it could go either way in the future. I still think some sort of decriminalization rather than legalization might be a better answer to some of the problems in America. __________________ Something Completely Different

10-19-2010, 02:50 AM	#320 (permalink)
~~Dirty~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: USA Posts: 981	I think it should be legalized. The government could regulate it and make money off of it. They could put restrictions on it regarding public use and usage near schools or in the work place and stuff like that if they wanted. Anything in excess is bad for you. Weed is no different. It's a non-addictive 'feel-good' drug. It just enhances everything. A lot of folks come home from work and kick back a few beers around the house or a glass of scotch. Is coming home and lighting a joint any different? Not really. Allow people to grow on their own property. It's just a plant! Smoke within the confines of their own home and I don't see a problem. The reason it's going to be awhile til it's legalized is because no politician is going to put their neck out there and risk their career by legalizing it. Too many old people would be outraged, not understanding what weed really is. As for health complications, I don't really see how that even plays into it. The government makes a KILLING off of cigarettes (literally and financially) and alcohol is also bad for you. The government doesn't really care about your health. They want you on THEIR drugs. Just look at the pharmaceutical market and how prescription pills have boomed over the decades.