Why is marijuana illegal?

[Perry]

If legalized, it might have to be regulated as a beverage too:
http://www.GreenDragonSoda.com

:-) j/k

I have found pot to be very different from alcohol. For some people they may be similar, but for myself: very, very different. I think alcohol is boring. Pot, on the otherhand is something that I miss experiencing these days.


I do believe the issue of why marijuana is illegal today is much more complicated than racism and financial interests, but there is historical significance in those theories. I'm working on an essay... The Internet can beat out the propaganda machine... Power is perhaps more addictive than some drugs, and marijuana removes assumptions.

[Dingfod]

A new study shows even 22,000 marijuana joints in a lifetime doesn't increase risk of cancer compared to nonsmokers. One reason why may be that the typical marijuana smoker doesn't smoke nearly as much as addicted tobacco smokers. A 2-pack a day cigarette smoker will some 292,000 cigarettes in 20 years.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by Ari

But there are visitors to the emergency room who think they have overdosed on marijuana. Because they mention pot emergency rooms write it down under a "mention" for reason of visit (a mention is as it sounds, when someone says they took a drug but the hospital couldn't find any evidence that drug caused them any medical problems). Some anti-drug groups have distorted this statistic claiming Marijuana is the reason for x number of emergency room visits each year and is thus dangerous.

Yes, cannabis combined with alcohol still allows alcohol-induced behavior to express itself. The combination is not unusual. I've always been taken with the stories of the Darwin Award winners; you'll see a very high incidence of alcohol misuse amongst the finalists each year. I see your point and am not surprised.

[erimir]

I'll get some stuff out of the way. I wouldn't call myself a pot smoker, but I have tried it, and I would probably do it again. And I would be more likely to if it were legal.

I think all drugs should be legal. Even the ones that people really shouldn't be doing because they're too dangerous are not criminal problems - they are health problems, and they should be treated as such. You shouldn't be given a criminal record for endangering yourself. It should, of course, be illegal to sell such dangerous drugs while giving consumers the impression that they are safe. There should obviously be things done to discourage the use of such things. And ones that are potentially lethal should be treated like other lethal substances.

Originally Posted by Legs

These kids need mentoring and help not a government stamp that it is "A-OK"

So, you support decriminalizing marijuana, then? Because I fail to see how a criminal conviction will help kids in any way.

I get the feeling you supporters are out of touch with the youth of today and are just fluffing off the dangers as 'well, I turned out okay ~ so will they"

And YOU are in touch with the youth of today?

Just as a note, marijuana (and tobacco, cocaine and alcohol) use among high school and college students is actually lower than it was ten years ago, so the problem isn't getting worse. Not to say that I think that the War on Drugs is any good.

btw, I am the youth of today.

So I am a hypocrite because

1) I oppose the legalization (or decriminalization, it would seem) of a drug because it will, in my opinion that is not backed up by scientific studies, harm our youth and society, but I do not oppose the legal status of a more addictive drug (alcohol) that causes at least as much harm to our youth and society, if not more

In that case I'll wear the H proudly

Fixed it for you.

Originally Posted by Ari

Many people use drugs to modify their body everyday, Starbucks has made a fortune on those that enjoy caffeine (a legal drug that is way more addictive than alcohol and can cause physical withdrawl symptoms).

I was personally going through some caffeine withdrawal yesterday and the couple days before that. But since my main source of caffeine is soda, the effects were limited to just a headache. But I'm pretty much over that now. But I'll just get addicted again when I go back to school and soda is everywhere.

1) the obvious - it's illegal

What are your opinions about other people who violate the law in some way. For example, gays who participated in gay sex when it was illegal? Or illegal immigrants?

What about those who violated Jim Crow laws during Freedom Summer? Did they deserve the beatings and imprisonments they got, simply because what they did was illegal? Cuz according to what you wrote here, you would be saying so.

2) It doesn't so much bother me to think of adults having a joint now and again - the thorn in my side is the 'appoval message' once it is legalized. This message sents to the youths of the world - that this is okay, accepted, encouraged, normal.

You remind me of the idiotic arguments from conservatives who oppose contraceptives such as the day after pill. Obviously, if you make more contraceptives available, teenagers will start having orgies!

If you don't agree, I'm terribly sorry but I am being honest about how I feel.

It's ok. I'm being honest when I say I find your arguments idiotic, hypocritical and your attitude towards drug users heartless ("heartless" as in "heartless bitch").

I don't see much point in arguing with a gullible government shill. And yet I just did... hmmmm...

[Corona688]

Originally Posted by erimir

I think all drugs should be legal. Even the ones that people really shouldn't be doing because they're too dangerous are not criminal problems - they are health problems, and they should be treated as such.

Even crystal meth? I support legalization of pot, though I have no interest in it myself -- but pot doesn't drive people quickly and permanently insane. Meth is seriously scary stuff.

[Crumb]

The new hip drug is always "seriously scary stuff". The same shit seems to get talked about every drug that comes down the pike.

[Kevlar]

Regardless of how dangerous the drug is, I think emimir's point still stands. Is is a problem that is better handled by doctors or prisons? IMO, it seems that prison doesn't reform people, it just makes them into hardened criminals. It also seems that there is no shortage of drugs inside prisons.

[Ari]

I agree with Erimir.
Even Meth should be made a legal controlled substance similar to alcohol. Although I haven't done much study into meth I do know some of the "evil meth" media claims are overblown.

Even without serious research into it, I can give a list of things legalization and FDA control of it would fix,
•Safe drugs. One danger of most drugs is being cut with other substances. Which can be as simple as flour or dangerous chemicals (in the case of things such as Ecstasy or cocaine products used to cut or fake the drug can be many times more dangerous than the drug itself).
•No money to gangs. Many gangs use drug money to fund their activities.
•Less money waste. The government has spent billions on a failed war on drugs. Redirecting the money could fix a number of problems (including spending it on addicts.
•Taxes. Just like tobacco and alcohol it could be taxed and the money spent to help addicts.
•Safer environment. One of the big dangers with Meth is its creation, especially by bad cooks. Producing chemicals that are harmful to the environment that are improperly disposed of, as well as creating an explosive area.

That's just for starters.

[BDS]

If gangs can't make money selling drugs, won't they turn to less benign criminal activities?

[Ari]

Sure, but if we can cut off a good money source, why not.

[Crumb]

Originally Posted by BDS

If gangs can't make money selling drugs, won't they turn to less benign criminal activities?

Dealing drugs had got to be the most lucrative gang activity. Reducing their funds reduces their appeal for recruiting, their access to weapons, automobiles, etc...

[BDS]

Originally Posted by Crumb

Dealing drugs had got to be the most lucrative gang activity. Reducing their funds reduces their appeal for recruiting, their access to weapons, automobiles, etc...

I'm sure that's true, to some extent. However, it's probably also true that in the short term, they'd turn to other criminal activities. Legalizing alcohol didn't eliminate the mafia.

Unforseen consequences are inevitable.

[Ari]

Of course the Mafia didn't vanish but its size and power isn't nearly the same (most likely caused by a number of factors not just the repeal of prohibition).

A number of very large gangs are heavily funded by drug manufacture and sales, taking it away would be like pulling the rug out from under them. Something the War on drugs has been trying to do but failing. There are also many neighborhoods that are put in danger from crime, centering around their area because of drugs.

[erimir]

Originally Posted by Corona688

Even crystal meth? I support legalization of pot, though I have no interest in it myself -- but pot doesn't drive people quickly and permanently insane. Meth is seriously scary stuff.

Yes, even meth. And I do consider it a serious problem.

It is scary, but I don't think that a user who is going insane and clawing at themselves and physically disfiguring themselves because of it is going to be helped by going to jail.

I don't think that we should ignore the problem of hard drugs, which are hard for anyone to use safely, or of addiction. I just don't see how criminalization will ever be a helpful solution.

Medical treatment and rehabilitation is the solution. A prison, besides simply being undesirable and not treating the problem, also comes with stigma, lost productivity and probably makes it worse for a lot of people.

There are all sorts of bad effects. Blacks are more likely to use crack cocaine than powder cocaine. Powder cocaine is the precursor to crack - you need powder dealers in order for crack dealers to exist - yet the penalty for possessing a certain amount of crack is the same as the penalty for possessing 100 times as much powder cocaine. It is a felony conviction. If you're black and convicted of a felony, finding a job becomes even harder than before (a white man with a felony is more likely to receive a call back than a black man with a clean record - and a felony for a black man makes it even worse). Which means what? Viable sources of income are...? The underground economy and criminal activities like crack dealing. The war on drugs is one of the major reasons (another being two/three strikes laws) that the black incarceration rate is so high. This shit is ridiculous, and I can't see any reason to support treating the drug problem that way. I fail to see how it is helping - and even if it reduces drug use, it causes all sorts of other problems that outweigh any benefits.

A different approach, without criminalization, could probably reduce the damaging effects of drugs more without having all these horrible other effects.

And yes, I can give you the references to sociology papers for that information.

[godfry n. glad]

Interesting.

Has it been tried? I'm familiar with a more lax approach to enforcement in the Netherlands, but I'm not familiar with any retrospective of the effects.

I agree that a concerted public health initiative would need to accompany a shift to such an approach. The expected results would be...what? Reduction in crime? Reduced need for jail and pen beds? Increased need for treatment centers and health professionals, particularly mental health professionals? How would such a system work? How would new users be handled? Would it be available to the extent that those who normally might not try some substance be tempted to 'try' one or more? ("Hey, they got some bodacious yellow smack, just in from the farms in Turkmenistan. If you were ever gonna try getting strung out on some decent smack, this is it!") How available would the various substances be? Would they be, like, at the local convenience market? Or, would a prescription be needed?

I guess I'm asking, if you decriminalize it, what will be the results?

[erimir]

I don't know that I would necessarily extend it so far as to say that drug stores could sell meth and heroin. But certainly there should be no criminal charges for the users of the drugs - that's my main point. Certain drugs should be legally available, but I wouldn't be able to say necessarily which.

We don't allow people to sell dangerous products in general. But we don't treat drugs the way we treat consumer protection issues. The issue with selling drugs isn't that it is a criminal offense on the same level as grand theft and assault, murder, etc. The issue is protecting consumers from a dangerous product. I'm not sure what the best approach is for that, but I still feel like the current treatment of drug dealing is not the best.

I don't want to encourage it, but I think it would be better if it were not surrounded with all the more serious crime, violence and secrecy it is now.

Only things I would definitely say right now are... Obviously, I think marijuana should be legally available. Possession or use of drugs should not be a crime. Cocaine penalties for dealing should be the same for powder and crack. And the government should stop LYING about drugs. If you're going to have an effective public health campaign, you need to be honest.

[Ari]

Well they do allow the sale of dangerous products such as tobacco and alcohol.
IMHO more than just decriminalization needs to be done as that will only fix a small part of the problem. Many drugs aren't nearly as dangerous as the government makes them out to be, often poor production from people who have no one to answer to and no regulations causes unneeded danger. Addiction without help causes other dangers and getting the environment the drug is bought and used in out from the shadows is one way to help addicts get help.

[BDS]

How about steroids?

If they were decriminalized, we wouldn't have to watch U.S. Congressmen make asses out of themselves.

Also, it would bug TomJoe.

Maybe we should legalize Thalidomyde, too. And Laetril.

I guess the point is: Shouldn't there be a comprehensive drug policy designed to promote the development of drugs beneficial to public health, protect the public from drugs harmful to public health, and protect the public from health fraud. On what basis should some drugs be considered separately from this policy, and others considered within this policy?

[Ari]

When talking about drugs taken for health reasons, yes, but recreational drugs (from tobacco to alcohol to caffeine to pot to LSD, etc) should be classed differently.

[BDS]

Originally Posted by Ari

When talking about drugs taken for health reasons, yes, but recreational drugs (from tobacco to alcohol to caffeine to pot to LSD, etc) should be classed differently.

It seems to me that we can classify drugs in several ways: 1) Intent of use (recreational or health); 2) method of manufacture (tobacco and marijuana, for example, are simply plants, other drugs are made in a lab); 3) safety of use (some drugs may be “recreational”, but very dangerous; others may be very dangerous, but have a great deal of value in curing diseases (chemotherapy, for example); still others may be utterly safe, but have little or unproven value in curing disease (medicinal herbs, for example, are legal if Generally Recognized as Safe, although they may not be marketed using claims that they treat, cure, prevent or mitigate a disease unless they have FDA approval as a "drug").

Most common recreational drugs however, may be used recreationally or for their health benefits (including marijuana, for example). Opiates, cocaine, steroids, oxycotin, amphetemines and more fit this description.

[Dingfod]

Originally Posted by BDS

How about steroids? ...Thalidomyde, too. And Laetril.

There are known unhealthy side-effects from even the proper use of those. And steroids are not illegal, only illegal for non-prescription use. I suppose morphine and cocaine also fit into that category too, they're available to qualified medical personnel because they're not harmful when used properly. And Laetril has not been scientifically proven to be an effective cancer treatment anyway.

[Corona688]

Originally Posted by erimir

It is scary, but I don't think that a user who is going insane and clawing at themselves and physically disfiguring themselves because of it is going to be helped by going to jail.

Might it prevent them from killing someone else?

I don't think that we should ignore the problem of hard drugs, which are hard for anyone to use safely, or of addiction. I just don't see how criminalization will ever be a helpful solution.

Medical treatment and rehabilitation is the solution. A prison, besides simply being undesirable and not treating the problem, also comes with stigma, lost productivity and probably makes it worse for a lot of people.

Can you rehabilitate drain bamage?

[Ari]

when dealing with most properly made drugs taken in the correct dosages brain damage only occurs after abuse. Thus you can prevent brain damage by rehabilitation. By treating people like sick patients and not criminals we can bring the abuse out into the open and make it more likely they will get the help they need.

[BDS]

Originally Posted by Dingfod

There are known unhealthy side-effects from even the proper use of those. And steroids are not illegal, only illegal for non-prescription use. I suppose morphine and cocaine also fit into that category too, they're available to qualified medical personnel because they're not harmful when used properly. And Laetril has not been scientifically proven to be an effective cancer treatment anyway.

That was my point. On what basis do we deregulate some recreational drugs, but continue to demand safety and efficacy testing for medicinal drugs? Would "recreational" drugs have to undergo the same kinds of safety tests as medicinal drugs (if so all the hippies might rebel, since it would involve torturing bunny rabbits)? Thalidomyde (for example) didn't really cure anything, it treated symptoms of morning sickness. In fact, it was never legal in the U.S. (thank goodness) because it had not passed FDA new drug procedures.

There are mechanisms by which we might do this -- medicinal herbs, for example, are exempt from safety testing if they are GRAS (Generally Recognized as Safe, based on centuries of use).

My point about laetril is that (I assume) NO recreational drugs have been proven to be effective treatments for a disease. On what basis would you ban laetril, but allow other drugs that have no efficacy for disease treatment? Aren't you opening up potential for fraud and quackery?

BDS -- who likes recreational drugs as much as the next person, but recognizes that it's a complex issue. Personally, I think a more laissez faire approach to ALL drugs might be reasonable. But in my experience, many people who want to deregulate recreational drugs also want to be protected from Vioxx, Laetril, etc. This seems like a contradictory position.

[erimir]

Originally Posted by BDS

I guess the point is: Shouldn't there be a comprehensive drug policy designed to promote the development of drugs beneficial to public health, protect the public from drugs harmful to public health, and protect the public from health fraud. On what basis should some drugs be considered separately from this policy, and others considered within this policy?

That doesn't really contradict what I was saying. I'm not a policy expert, so it's not like I would know the best way of going about things.

But as I said, drugs are more of a health issue and consumer protection issue, which fits in with what you're saying here.

Dangerous recreational drugs shouldn't be illegal to use, but because consumers need protection, those selling them should be subject to the same treatment we give to people selling other dangerous substances.

On what basis do we deregulate some recreational drugs, but continue to demand safety and efficacy testing for medicinal drugs?

I think we should demand safety from recreational drugs as well. The company selling the drug would have to acknowledge any health risks, just as tobacco companies have to. Additionally, recreational drugs actually have the desired effect - people wouldn't take those medicinal drugs at all if they weren't safe or didn't cure the condition. If a recreational drug is potentially dangerous, many people will still do it (see: tobacco, alcohol).

I don't think anyone will get rich off of a recreational drug that relies on the placebo effect, so it's safe to assume that a recreational drug does in fact have efficacy. But I suppose you could test that as well, if it became an issue. Of course, we would want forms of labeling designating the strength of things so that they can't sell you weak stuff claiming it's strong, and vice versa.

There are mechanisms by which we might do this -- medicinal herbs, for example, are exempt from safety testing if they are GRAS (Generally Recognized as Safe, based on centuries of use).

I personally think that these things should be required to be tested to prove that they actually have the effect they claim. It's false advertising, and it allows these companies to scam people all the time.

My point about laetril is that (I assume) NO recreational drugs have been proven to be effective treatments for a disease.

I was under the impression that marijuana and cocaine had legitimate medicinal uses. I don't think they "cure" any disease tho...

On what basis would you ban laetril, but allow other drugs that have no efficacy for disease treatment? Aren't you opening up potential for fraud and quackery?

If it were quackery, they would have to sell a drug as a recreational drug but somehow claim medicinal effects - which would be in violation of the law. If it's sold for medicinal uses it has to pass muster, if it's only sold for recreational purposes then it can't claim to be medically useful.

I suppose that raises questions for how to deal with a drug when it can be used for both (e.g. marijuana can be prescribed to cancer patients). It would still be an advertising issue, I guess.

Originally Posted by Corona688

Might it prevent them from killing someone else?

Can you rehabilitate brain damage?

That's not why meth users are put in jail at the moment, so I don't see why that would matter, because even if you are not dangerous to anyone and use meth, you would still be arrested.

People who are going insane or have brain damage go to mental institutions, not prison. As I said, I don't see how prison will help these people, or us.