Your view on the legalization of marijuana

[RedImperator]

Im not so sure about that.
<snip>

There's an ennsy-weensy difference between tobacco and marijuana that article failed to address: namely, nicotine is the most addictive drug known to man while THC (marijuana's active ingredient) has no physically addictive qualities whatsoever (and comparatively mild psychologically addictive qualities). Nicotine addicts 33% of of everyone who ever tries it; marijuana addicts less than 10. Twenty cigarettes (and there are studies that have different numbers; the most common figure I've heard is 3-5) won't give you lung cancer. Twenty thousand do, and you're far more likely, if you try both drugs, to smoke twenty thousand cigarettes than a thousand joints.

Not to necessarily suggest you're wrong, but going on the rate of physical addiction alone and neglecting the extent of psychological addiction that occurs in practice doesn't give you the whole picture. I can speak from experience, both secondhand and personal, that the extent of psychological addiction is significant enough to warrant serious consideration in the final picture and needs some research of it's own.

I should have been clearer: the addiction numbers I'm using (from here) don't distinguish between physical and psychological addiction; they simply count what percentage of total users become dependent, by whatever mechanism. Marijuana's physical addiction rate is zero; THC just doesn't cause the chemical feedback effect in the brain that nicotine and opiates do (incidentally, cocaine's addiction mechanism seems more psychological than physical, which is why cocaine withdrawal is relatively mild). And really, all drugs have a psychological component; nothing else could explain how users who have been clean for years still have to fight cravings.

[PainRack]

In Singapore, police enforcement and banning of drugs like marijuana can lower drug abuse to a very healthy level.

Whoop-di-do. Since Americans would never accept the Singaporean criminal justice system, I fail to understand what this has to do with anything.

Yeah. America would never adopt the counseling, forced insitution and rehabilitation/intergration of drug addicts back into society, along with society safehouses..... Wait, I seem to remember we copied them from　America in the first place.

Oh wait, are you referring to the execution of drug traffickers? How on earth is that different from the lifelong jailterms, confisication of property or the use of military force to attack druglords? Or is being executed by smart missiles, bombs and guns somehow now more acceptable than hanging and chemical execution?(For the US equivalent).

[FireNexus]

Cocaine's addiction mechanism is actually quite physical. It rewires neural reward pathways to achieve its addictive properties, making your brain believe cocaine is the ultimate survival mechanism. I believe "Cocaine: An Unauthorized Biography" detailed a study involving primates and a number of drugs of abuse. Essentially, the primates were taught to hit a bar to receive a shot of a drug. The more shots of drug they got, the more times they had to hit the bar to get a new shot of drug. Cocaine beat out the next most addictive drug by double when the monkey hit the bar something like 13000 times for a single dose. At that point they just stopped the experiment.

Animal models consistently showing them choosing cocaine over food, and, when given the oppurtunity, just downing cocaine until they pass out from exhaustion. Cocaine is extremely and dangerously addictive, and don't let anyone tell you different.

[FireNexus]

I should add that cocaine isn't instantly addictive (almost nothing is), and it's expense is the primary reason more people don't become addicted to it. But I bet the chart you provided would have it higher than cigarettes if a dosage unit were comparable in price. Most people just can't afford to do enough coke to develop a coke habit.

[Justforfun000]

The fact that so many people use marijuana and function with no serious problems is enough of a testament to it's relative benign nature. Lets be realistic here..people like recreational drugs because they give feelings of pleasure or happiness. It's a pretty hard thing to argue against as a choice in that regard. Who can successfully argue that doing things that make you happy and euphoric are wrong as a lifestyle choice just because there are certain physical prices to pay? Eating burgers that raise your cholesterol levels and contribute to heart disease is not exactly a smart choice from a purely physical perspective either but we don't see people fighting to outlaw McDonalds.

We are not immortal. We are all going to die and it's simply a matter of when. Many people feel their general satisfaction involving life and liberty choices are a perfectly reasonable argument for their choice to partake in certain things that are a trade-off between short-term gratification and potential longevity. Moderation is the best guide to lifestyle choices when dealing with issues like recreational drug use of soft substances. Very dangerous and deletorious substance like Crystal Meth are simply too damaging to be legalized. They destroy families, bodies and people's ability to live a relatively healthy existence. But a little pot? It's simply too mild in the overall scheme of things.

That being said I personally hate the stuff. I'm somewhat with Broomstick. I get very unpleasant reactions from it. Paranoia, feelings of fear that I am not breathing correctly, horribly insecure self-esteem issues, etc. But hey, that's me. Other people get the complete opposite. If it works for you, fill your boots. I think it's absolutely ridiculous to criminalize people on the same level as crimes like assualt, robbery and rape as just some examples.

[Ryan Thunder]

By the way, should other drugs that is much more addictive like nicotine be legalized in your opinion?

Hells no.

That's the reflex answer, but it might not be right for all drugs. I think there are some which are obviously just too dangerous to legalize (meth, which might be the one drug which is actually as bad as your teacher said drugs are, for example), but for others, a more nuanced policy is called for. Tossing people in jail for smoking crack or shooting heroin hasn't done a damn thing to help anybody. And while I'd stop short at outright legalization of those two for recreational use, it's worth noting that the US's historical all-time high for opiate and cocaine addiction came in the late-19th/early-20th century, when patent medicines were full of the stuff, and we didn't suffer the kind of social destruction associated with them now. And of course, one strong argument for legalization is that we could pay poor Colombian and Afghan farmers for their crops directly, instead of letting the FARC and the Taliban take a cut first.

Alright, I wasn't suggesting that we should toss folks in jail for smoking/shooting up. They're the victims. Discourage them from doing it, by fining them if necessary. Locking them up does nothing. It's the suppliers that need to be targeted.

[General Zod]

Alright, I wasn't suggesting that we should toss folks in jail for smoking/shooting up. They're the victims. Discourage them from doing it, by fining them if necessary. Locking them up does nothing. It's the suppliers that need to be targeted.

I don't think fining would be very successful. Generally a lot of people who shoot up spend all of their money to do so, so how will they pay the fine?

[Hillary]

By the way, should other drugs that is much more addictive like nicotine be legalized in your opinion?

Hells no.

I would say Hell, yes - legalise and regulate all of them.

There is not a single logical argument for regulating marijuana that does not apply to the other recreational drugs. For clarification, I do not count the "dope isn't really that bad" argument as logical.

By regulation, I do not mean that sweet shops will be selling heroin; the more dangerous drugs will obviously need much more stringent regulation than less harmful ones.

What legalising does is take the supply out of the hands of the gangsters and put it in the control of government. From there you can regulate the strength and purity of supply and also supply information as to the effects and health impacts of the drug and, most importantly, how to avoid the biggest immediate dangers of the dose (e.g. Ecstasy is an anti-diuretic, so make sure you don't drink too much water).

The issue should not be to stop people taking drugs (as desirable as this may be, it is simply impossible to achieve), it should be to minimise its impact on public health. This can only be done by taking control of supply.

[Lord of the Abyss]

I'd also go for the "legalize it but regulate it's use in public"; I don't want people to be forced to breathe the stuff. Both because you've no right to get other people high, and because frankly I think the stuff stinks.

I say legalize (and let all those hundreds of thousands out of jail; it's expensive and wasteful), regulate like crazy (like tobacco, only more so), and tax the ever-loving fuck out of it.

I'm not really sure if that would be a good idea; it seems to me that the result would just be a continuation of the black market.

[His Divine Shadow]

Well the black market would dissapear over time when you can start buying marijuana from stores. And making it legal to grow your own would also prevent people from buying from dealers.

[RedImperator]

Oh wait, are you referring to the execution of drug traffickers? How on earth is that different from the lifelong jailterms, confisication of property or the use of military force to attack druglords? Or is being executed by smart missiles, bombs and guns somehow now more acceptable than hanging and chemical execution?(For the US equivalent).

Bullshit. The strictest state marijuana laws I could find, in Florida, has a 15 year mandatory minimum sentence for possession of fifteen thousand pounds of marijuana. Possession of 500 grams, which carries the death penalty in Singapore, gets you five years in Florida. In Federal law, the only life sentence on the books is for sale or cultivation of more than 1000kg, and even that is the maximum (minimum is 10 years). The only death penalty on the books (which has never been applied, so far as I know), is for sixty thousand kilograms of marijuana, and only for the "principal leader" of the organization in possession of that much marijuana (the law is specifically written for a drug lord, in other words). As draconian as American drug laws are, you're on drugs yourself if you think they're anywhere near as bad as Singapore's.

As for the military, I can't find any evidence anywhere for US military airstrikes on drug lords anywhere, let alone inside the United States (the exception being Afghanistan, where undoubtedly some of the Taliban militants targeted by the Air Force are involved in heroin trafficking). Some of our allies are using military force against drug cartels, especially Mexico and Colombia, but in those cases, the cartels have gotten so large and out of control (thanks largely to the US government pressuring those countries to fight the War on Drugs for them) they represent significant destabilizing forces in those countries, and they've become too large for ordinary law enforcement to deal with. This is in no way, shape, or form equivalent to hanging someone for possessing 500g. Even if the US military is directly involved in military strikes on cartels, they're not putting JDAMs through the windows of college kids selling half a kilo out of their dorms.

[The Kernel]

As for the military, I can't find any evidence anywhere for US military airstrikes on drug lords anywhere, let alone inside the United States (the exception being Afghanistan, where undoubtedly some of the Taliban militants targeted by the Air Force are involved in heroin trafficking). Some of our allies are using military force against drug cartels, especially Mexico and Colombia, but in those cases, the cartels have gotten so large and out of control (thanks largely to the US government pressuring those countries to fight the War on Drugs for them) they represent significant destabilizing forces in those countries, and they've become too large for ordinary law enforcement to deal with. This is in no way, shape, or form equivalent to hanging someone for possessing 500g. Even if the US military is directly involved in military strikes on cartels, they're not putting JDAMs through the windows of college kids selling half a kilo out of their dorms.

Clearly you didn't realize that the movie Clear and Present Danger is a documentary.

[Mayabird]

I say legalize (and let all those hundreds of thousands out of jail; it's expensive and wasteful), regulate like crazy (like tobacco, only more so), and tax the ever-loving fuck out of it.

I'm not really sure if that would be a good idea; it seems to me that the result would just be a continuation of the black market.

There's quite a difference from the current black market in heavily taxed cigarettes and the current black market for marijuana. The former involves guys in vans who drive down to North Carolina, stock up on hundreds of cartons, stuff them into their vans, and drive back to get around the taxes (and I note that even if one state is getting a bit screwed over, ultimately the money is going back into the legitimate market). If illegal marijuana trafficking reduced to that, it's a HUGE improvement over today's mess.

Also, I like to harp on the tax revenue possibilities because I figure the possibility of metric shit-tons of legitimate cash could help sway a lot of people who otherwise would be knee-jerk opposed. They might not care about the society at large and what's best for everyone, but offer them a chance for personal riches and they're on it.

[Ryan Thunder]

[...]The issue should not be to stop people taking drugs (as desirable as this may be, it is simply impossible to achieve), it should be to minimise its impact on public health. This can only be done by taking control of supply.

You know, I see what you mean, but I just can't help thinking there has to be a better solution than just giving it to them. It just seems to me that it would encourage it. You know how people are.

"Government says that shit's really bad for you."
"Oh yeah? If its so bad, then why do they sell it to me?"

See what I mean? You have to protect people from their own stupidity sometimes, and while I understand the angle you're coming from, that solution just doesn't seem very conducive to thatgoal.

[RedImperator]

[...]The issue should not be to stop people taking drugs (as desirable as this may be, it is simply impossible to achieve), it should be to minimise its impact on public health. This can only be done by taking control of supply.

You know, I see what you mean, but I just can't help thinking there has to be a better solution than just giving it to them. It just seems to me that it would encourage it. You know how people are.

"Government says that shit's really bad for you."
"Oh yeah? If its so bad, then why do they sell it to me?"

See what I mean? You have to protect people from their own stupidity sometimes, and while I understand the angle you're coming from, that solution just doesn't seem very conducive to thatgoal.

If you're going to make this argument, you need to back it up with numbers, and good luck finding them. According to the UN 2008 World Drug Report (link is on page, PDF, huge), the United States' usage rate is more than twice that of the Netherlands, where marijuana is legally sold. In fact, the Netherlands ranks in the middle of the pack in the First World, while the United States, with all its Rockefeller Laws and mandatory minimums and absurd propaganda, actually has a higher rate of consumption than Jamaica.

[Mayabird]

[...]The issue should not be to stop people taking drugs (as desirable as this may be, it is simply impossible to achieve), it should be to minimise its impact on public health. This can only be done by taking control of supply.

You know, I see what you mean, but I just can't help thinking there has to be a better solution than just giving it to them. It just seems to me that it would encourage it. You know how people are.

"Government says that shit's really bad for you."
"Oh yeah? If its so bad, then why do they sell it to me?"

See what I mean? You have to protect people from their own stupidity sometimes, and while I understand the angle you're coming from, that solution just doesn't seem very conducive to thatgoal.

If you're going to make this argument, you need to back it up with numbers, and good luck finding them. According to the UN 2008 World Drug Report (link is on page, PDF, huge), the United States' usage rate is more than twice that of the Netherlands, where marijuana is legally sold. In fact, the Netherlands ranks in the middle of the pack in the First World, while the United States, with all its Rockefeller Laws and mandatory minimums and absurd propaganda, actually has a higher rate of consumption than Jamaica.

Ryan as others have mentioned already, it's removing the Forbidden Fruit. It's like how abstinence-only sex ed, which in practice tries to demonize sex outside of marriage (been there, done that), manages to make teens more likely to have sex (and when they do, far less likely to use birth control). If you really want to protect people from their own stupidity, remove the (actual, not supposed) appeal to the stupid.

[The Guid]

Its also got something to do I think with the fact that if government legalises it then it can stop with some of the bollocks involved in drugs education. Teachers have to make marujuana sound much worse than it is so come up with a lot stuff about it that people then see, when drugs around, is clearly not true. this has the knock on effect of making them think that the stuff about other drugs isn't true - when some of it may well be: cocaine will fuck you up, heroin will destroy you, LSD can completely alter your state of mind so its frightening.

[His Divine Shadow]

Isn't LSD fairly harmless though?

[General Zod]

Isn't LSD fairly harmless though?

That depends on your definition of "harmless". In a fairly controlled environment, it's not terribly addictive, and one hit might not fuck you up for life or anything, but I wouldn't want anyone taking a hit of LSD and going out to drive or have a night on the town any more than I'd want someone getting completely shitfaced off a bottle of vodka and doing the same. LSD also has the added side effects of permanently fucking up things like your vision if you take too much; which can be a significantly lower dose than equivalent drugs require to fuck you up permanently.

[The Guid]

Isn't LSD fairly harmless though?

Physically? Yes, you'll sleep it off. For the most part, though what is written above isn't something I have the knowledge to disagree with.
Mentally, no. It could scare the living crap out of you, especially if it is done wrong, and who exactly is teaching people about these things?

Making it a Class A drug is madness in my opinion, and i might favour legalisation, but ultimately it will kill people unless it is somehow heavily controlled from stupid people.

[Akumz Razor]

People who take LSD also often experience a kind of "emotional revelation" which can last long after the drug wears off. It can be something as benign as falling in love with a new genre of music, but a bad trip can lead to major emotional aftereffects.

[The Guid]

It would be interesting to hear people's view on legalising that. Would that be best in a new thread or just to continue on this one? Mod please advise!

[Akumz Razor]

Legalizing any drug which has potential for overdose or mental breakdown is very tricky. The dosages would have to be heavily regulated and IMO there would still be a large black market for those looking for more powerful stuff.

[General Zod]

It would be interesting to hear people's view on legalising that. Would that be best in a new thread or just to continue on this one? Mod please advise!

LSD would be (imo) far too easy to overdose on and fuck yourself up permanently with, combined with lots of unpredictable effects as far as how people will behave. I see no reason to justify legalizing it; at least with marijuana, it's objectively less harmful than smoking tobacco, so there's plenty of room for arguing in favor of it there.

[General Zod]

Legalizing any drug which has potential for overdose or mental breakdown is very tricky. The dosages would have to be heavily regulated and IMO there would still be a large black market for those looking for more powerful stuff.

ANY drug has a potential for being overdosed. The question is how much it takes to OD, in addition to whether or not those overdoses can be FATAL or otherwise cause significant degrees of harm compared to other drugs.