420: who here supports the prohibition of marijuana? And why?

Great Debates
141

No, the years I picked were pretty close: 1997 vs. 1999-2001. My problem was that I compared the city of Amsterdam with the country of the United States of America. This was highly dubious (though unintentional). Oops.

I suspect that this would be the case.

------- Preferences and trends matter far more than legality and taxes.

Ok, but “Preferences and trends”, can be read as, “Reasons we don’t know about”.

I don’t want to overstate matters. Still the differences in reported usage among licit and illicit drugs are fairly striking, valid concerns regarding underreporting notwithstanding. A serious attempt to sort through some of these issues (not by us) might be interesting.

I’d like to amplify an earlier point of mine. Following legalization, it can be reasonably predicted that Corporations would soon dominate the supply side of the market. They would apply standard business tools: these include marketing, advertising, lobbying, lawyering and process engineering. Any initial regulatory barriers would be circumvented, after the public’s attention turns to the next issue. Furthermore, the companies would have an enthusiastic subculture of voters (and rural suppliers) to call upon.

------ this regulatory capture argument feels more like grasping at straws than anything substantial.

You overstate my concern frankly. I’m simply pointing out the inevitable response by business to the lifting of legal restrictions. Judging from past experience, methinks that efforts to promote their product will not be in vain. Teams of business professionals are very good at what they do.

Holland hasn’t experienced any of this: for this reason, I’d characterize their drug policy as something other very different than full legalization.

OTOH, though I wouldn’t look forward to seeing ads for EZSmokes: Smoothe! or Weed: When One Toke Isn’t Enough, prohibition opponents can rightfully point out the waste associated with the US’s aggressive program of interdiction and incarceration.

142

So if I can find a way to use a drug recreationally, it should be legal to do so?

Should it be legal for pharmaceutical companies to offer all medications they make to be sold for recreational purposes? There could potentially be big business in offering (probably) diluted versions of all current and future medications.

143

Yes, in most cases, I’d say it should be legal.

Of course, all drugs are different. I could be convinced to change my mind for a particular drug if there’s evidence that it causes the user to pose significant harm to the people around him (more so than other forms of recreation or conditions like tiredness), or is highly addictive and such addiction poses an immediate health risk to the user, or is difficult to take recreationally in a safe dose (one that won’t cause immediate and severe health problems), or is likely to be intentionally sold or used as a substitute for proven medical treatment for some illness.

144

And in what way are you qualified to make such a decision?

145

You asked me for my opinion. You didn’t ask if I went to medical school. I’m giving you my philosophical opinion about whether people should be allowed to put chemicals into their bodies for the purpose of having a good time, which I base on the fact that recreational drug use is a form of recreation, not an attempt to cure any illness.

You think they should not. What’s your qualification? If we’re just two laymen, what’s the problem here?

146

I would call it “judgment” rather than “speculation”.

I have an informal cost-benefit analysis. You assemble the harms in one column, the benefits in another. You back certain estimates with research. Then you make the judgment call.

Fair enough, but
a) I’d like to see a more systematic analysis (in general, not necessarily from any particular poster) and
b) there are also various decriminalization options which I suspect are superior to the status quo. (To repeat, I balk at immediate legalization for reasons given earlier).

Costs. Benefits. Alternatives.

147

The UK government had prepared a confidential report, which was later leaked. This report presents information about drugs, drug crimes, drug war results. Tt is a recommended read (presented as slides). PDF version. However, I’ll note that some of the “harms” disingenuously attributed to drugs, especially heroin, are a result of the illegality and the price combined with its addictive potential, rather than the drug e.g. they count people fired from job for drug use, as a ‘harm’, which is deceptive to my mind.

You will find various reports on drugs, drug laws, their impact, and evaluation of alternatives at The Centre for Drug Research at Univ. of Amsterdam.

I agree that immediate legalization is inadvisable. There needs to be a ‘germinating period’ in which suitable sensibilites get implanted in society before neighbourhood pharmacies start carrying Heavenly Heroin. Unfortunately, such enculturation can’t happen from afar. There’ll have to be a phased legalization where cannabis gets the nod first alongwith psilocybin and mescaline, followed by coca beverages and opium tea, and so on.

The King County Bar Association of WA state has put up a proposal for regulating drugs. Transform Drug Policy Foundation of Britain also has a report on what the regulation might look like.

There was a book with a collection of essays examing various legalization schemes, published in the late 90s. At present, I can’t remember its title. Will try to.

148

My qualification is in stating “I’m not qualified, ergo, punt to the FDA.” So if you’re going to argue against my stance, when asked which drugs should be legalised and illegalised you respond “Some dependent on the medical hazard”–well you’re stating nothing different from what my position is.

Of course the fact that marijuana (as everyone here intends it) is smoked would probably get it marked off the safe for human inhalation list. But hey, the doctor’s just trying to do his bit in “doing no harm.”

149

I don’t support legalization in any way.

I’ve seen way, way too many lives ruined by pot. It’s an addictive drug; whether physchologically or physiologically addictive is immaterial. The smoke is higher in carcinogens than tobacco smoke. It causes adverse physical affects, such as memory loss, and they are not reversible (at least not to my knowledge).

IMNSHO, legalization is a bad move all the way around.

My $0.02 worth…

150

Alright, but everyone who wants pot can still get it pretty easily, INCLUDING the addicts and would-be addicts. Why not allow those who do not have addictive personalities and can consume alcohol and marijuana without feeling any addiction whatsoever to use pot without facing time in a prison cell?

As for the carcinogens, I always thought that even though pot might have more carcinogens, you don’t see people smoking multiple packs of 20 joints per day - therefore comparing it to cigarettes is kind of disingenuous.

Some people are the type who will allow substances or other addictions to take over their life, and ruin it, as you’ve said. A lot of people are not like this. Why screw these people by making weed illegal?

151

But that’s not all you’ve said. You’ve stated that drugs with no medical purpose should be illegal - what’s your qualification for that?

152

So, only people with medical degrees are allowed to make decisions about medical risk?

153

Just to clarify what I said earlier…

I’m happy to let the FDA or another designated scientific board determine the harm that a drug might cause its user to pose to others, or a drug’s addictive potential and the health risks of that addiction, or the difference between a safe dose and a lethal dose, or the potential for a recreational drug to be used to treat actual illness.

But it is not the business of doctors to decide what forms of recreation are appropriate. A doctor can tell me about the health risks of playing football, but I’m the one who decides whether those risks are worth it, and I don’t have to have a medical license to decide that the risks he tells me about are outweighed by the fun I could have tossing around the pigskin.

Similarly, I don’t have to have medical qualifications to say that a drug should be legal for recreational use if medical investigation reveals that it doesn’t have those risks I mentioned.

154

I stated that prescription drugs which are not ever prescribed because there are better alternatives are still prescription drugs and off limits. And I see no reason to change that.

155

You stated exactly what I said you did.

Now how about you answer my question, which was not about prescription drugs, instead of changing the subject again?

156

But it is their job to take a scientific approach to dealing with people’s health. If, to them, it looked like ultimately it looks like more lives/careers will be saved by legalising marijuana joints (and thereby decreasing usage and or illegal dealings that would be inherently dangerous) then certainly. But when it comes to peoples lives, I’d rather shell out some extra money to make sure that more kids have bright futures than to say “screw it” just because I’m having to pay an extra $50 a year to keep the police busting marijuana dealers.

So, if after the full 10 year process of FDA testing* to know precisely what health risks like lung cancer or brain damage are probable and they still say “Heck, may as well give 'er a shot”, then I have no problem. But if they decide against, I’m behind them on that even if it costs me more. But I’m not going to go with the idea that we should just blindly allow a pharmaceutical to be shipped out for human consumption just because a bunch of pot heads don’t care about themselves, their futures, nor knowing what is actually going to happen to their body.

  • Or however long that is
157

I had believed you were talking about prescription drugs (seeing as how the post you were responding to was the one where I was talking about prescription drugs being illegal.) If that wasn’t what you were referrring to, then I saw no reason why you would be challenging my position.

158

I have two problems with this approach. The first is purely philosophical: it’s the role of the medical establishment to inform people about their health choices, not to make those choices for them. I support studies to identify precisely the risks and benefits of any given drug, and to disseminate that information to anyone who wants it. I don’t agree that anyone has the right to tell me how to use (or abuse) my own body, no matter how many medical degrees they have.

But the real problem I have with this is that I do not trust the FDA to make their decision based on science and not politics. We’ve seen them cave into political pressure time and time again when it comes to controversial substances, and I have no reason to expect them to act differently when it comes to recreational drugs.

I’m also disappointed to see you fall back on the old “What about the children?” dodge. We’re talking about informed adults, here, not children.

159

Certainly, but I would view that as being much more a different debate. Related to this one of course, but probably really deserving of its own thread and not just concerned with marijuana.

The two biggest arguments against, of course, are:

  1. If there’s a poison that is addictive and only kills very, very slowly and that poison has become popular for consumption among teens–it is immoral to not try and stop it. Of course, marijuana doesn’t appear to be so nefarious as that–but still someone has to decide which ones are in this category and which aren’t. So unless you think that teens and even the adult populace is smarter than to largely fall prey to peer pressure, I don’t think there’s much argument to be made against this. The Wave

  2. Mind altering drugs are called so because after use, your ability to make decisions has changed or been impaired. In a world which assumes that each individual is responsible enough to decide for himself what he is going to do to himself, you would have to assume that no one will ever be in a state where he is not able to make such decisions with full clarity and maturity. So, simply if the world was the way where only the information would be enough–no laws would be needed to prevent people from doing it simply because it wouldn’t occur to anyone to do it.

This would be yet another debate. “Does the FDA need an overhaul?”
And I would agree with you, particularly if we were going to move deciding drug policy out of the realm of politics and into science, as would seem best to me. (I.e. form a hypothesis for what will work, give it a trial period, study the results and repeat–without any sort of ego involved.)

I didn’t (particularly) mention children or even teens in the post you quoted, but assuming you refer to other posts: How is this a dodge? So far as I had believed, the primary reason for drug laws is to protect children and their futures. Not talking about them in such a discussion would seem much more of a dodge, I would think.

160

How is this a different debate? This is precisely what has been discussed for the last four pages: does the government have the right to tell you what you can or cannot do with your own body?

Again, we’re not talking about teenagers, we’re talking about adults. We don’t want kids to drink, either, but we don’t use that as an excuse to ban alcohol. At least, not anymore. You want to keep drugs away from kids, legalize and regulate them, so that the indiscriminate black market dries up and legitimate merchants step in. Ask any teenager what’s easier for him to get: alcohol or pot, and without fail, the answer is always pot. Because a drug dealer isn’t going to have the same qualms about selling to kids that a supermarket does.

But, again, this is a meaningless argument, because we’re talking about what adults should or should not be allowed to do, not what children should or should not be allowed to do.

I don’t really give a fuck about peer pressure. If an adult wants to do drugs to fit in with a particular social circle, then it is his choice to do so, not his doctor’s and not his government’s. And it’s certainly not yours.

This stems from the assumption that drug use is by definition irresponsible. I do not agree with that assumption. It also presupposes that it is the role of the government to enforce personal responsibility, which is another concept I find personally repugnant.

So you admit that your solution of “leave it up to the FDA” is untenable?

Yes, you did:

I don’t think that the behavior of adults should be confined to what we think is acceptable for children. I also don’t think empty appeals to emotionalism like that have a place in serious debate.