If you can’t, or won’t answer these questions, you are demonstratively ignorant of the status of marijuana legalization.
You got a cite for the rampant abuse in California?
This is a start, although I’m going to look for a better source that’s a little less anecdotal:
Here’s a better one, not just about Calif:
One more, missed the edit window: Medical Marijuana: Buyers Remorse in California Reaches New Heights | HuffPost Latest News
Not even remotely comparable to alcohol. When younger, I’ve smoked every day and then quit from one day to the next without any difficulty altogether. Plenty of other people have done exactly the same.
As far as I know, there no physical dependance. There might be psychological dependance for some people, but then again, it’s true also for other substances on top of physical dependance. Which makes cannabis much more inocuous than…about everything.
If alcohol only created a “psychological dependance” , there would be massively less alcoholics, precisely, and treating them would be vastly easier. So, your comparison just doesn’t apply.
Absolutely true there seems to be no physical dependence issues with pot. This is also true of amphetamines, for example. What do speed freaks do when they crash? Go to bed.
Tissue dependence is one factor to consider in considering the ‘addictive potential’ of a substance. I am addicted to caffeine, and have a physical dependence (caffeine withdrawal headache, anyone?) This one element isn’t the whole story, of course. The world is also full of people who have drunk heavily for a time and quit without any significant effort. Terr’s own stats indicated that approximately 9% of users would end up classified as ‘dependent’, as I recall. A number lower than alcohol, or heroin, to be sure, but one in ten is still perhaps significant?
Claire: If alcohol only created a “psychological dependance” , there would be massively less alcoholics, precisely, and treating them would be vastly easier. So, your comparison just doesn’t apply.
This is a little simplistic. The biggest problem with sobriety with alcoholics isn’t getting them past physical dependence, that’s the relatively easy part. The harder part is relapse prevention, which occurs after the primary stages of physical dependence have typically been addressed. Ask someone in sobriety from alcohol about ‘dry drunks’ sometime.
Even taking your figures for granted, you have in cannabis a drug which :
-Creates dependance less often than others
-Creates a more minor form of dependance
-Isn’t nearly as damaging health-wise
Why would you want to ban it, again? I seriously suspect that coffe is on the overall more addictive and more damaging. Even if it’s addictive, why does it matter if it’s mostly harmless anyway?
Frankly unless you want to ban anything that presents some level of risk and is somewhat addictive in the psychological sense (and I mean things like unhealthy food, most sports, television,…) there’s in my opinion no objective reason to ban cannabis, either.
The only reason why people argue about that is because they’re are accustomed to it being illegal (hence, “a drug” in the most negative sense of the word) and because it has been idiotically demonized. I’m in my late 40s and all my life, every 6-7 years or so, I’ve heard about some new scientific comitee tasked with studying the dangers of cannabis, and every single time they came up with “not really dangerous” or variation thereof, which didn’t change a thing since this conclusion didn’t fit well with politicians (and their electors).
The ban on cannabis is just idiotic, and on top of this it feeds criminal networks. I’ve known many people who had their life devastated or were outright killed by all sorts of addictions (including such things as gambling, for instance), most often by alcohol. I’ve known one person who was (in my opinion) significantly made worse off by cannabis, and he was schizophrenic to begin with.
All these things combined prevent me from taking seriously debates about cannabis. Ban first alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, motorcycles, jogging (plenty of people who have run too much in their life have serious joint problems around 50), skiing, video games and then we’ll talk about banning cannabis.
If we make drugs illegal and lock people up for selling or using them, who’s paying the costs for that?
There’s an obvious answer for that, we are. I’m not defending that point, or the war on drugs, because I don’t support the war on drugs. People seem to want to be pushing me into that box, maybe because it is simpler. I’m trying to have a conversation about public policy, epidemiology, and harm mitigation (you can debate if there are any potential harms to be mitigated, of course).
Again, I grant that pot is less harmful than many/most drugs you can compare it to. But let us assume it is not entirely harmless, either. We can stick with the fairly well documented “adverse impact upon the developing brain”. Latest research suggests that the “developing brain” stage lasts until approx the mid-20s.
I’ve also tried to tie in the idea that we’ve done a good job of decreasing smoking tobacco among our population, esp. our youth, and that this has benefited us overall. I think most of the posters here would agree with that observation. Note that I’m not calling for the criminalization of tobacco, nor do I have to make any wonky “Tobacco Madness” bad science claims to wonder if maybe we should still consider that pot may have some negative effects and we might want to consider how best to mitigate them as we legalize its use. I don’t think sending out a message of “it’s harmless fun” is necessarily wise or true whether we’re talking about pot or alcohol (or ecstasy, prescription painkillers, etc).
Back to the beginning.
If you are over 18 and you and your spouse or buddies want to get high in your own home, then I have no problem with it. Stoners are alot easier to get along with than drunks.
The problems occur if you endanger me and my family by trying to drive high or if teenagers get ahold of the stuff.
Sure. I am also sure that at least one in ten are “dependent” on chocolate. And I am sure many more than one in ten are dependent on coffee. Should those substances be legal?
Ok, but this thread is specifically about legalization. If you think that the potential harm must be considered, what is your remedy if it’s not continued prohibition? If you don’t provide some sort of decriminalization, at least, you’re effectively supporting the drug war.
So, let’s handle it that way. We’ve had pretty good results with leaving tobacco legal, but advertising that it’s a terrible idea. Why not have that be the way we handle the problem with marijuana?
FWIW, I haven’t seen any of the pro-legalization crowd pretending that it is harmless, just that it’s less harmful than just about every other recreational drug ever consumed by man. If I did run into someone who believed it was harmless, I would not trust their advice on much.
Sure… and use some of the taxes on it pay for some studies to determine
[ol]
[li]What tests can determine if you’re driving with THC in your system[/li][li]What level of THC impairs your driving[/li][/ol]CA Normal Drug Testing page
Seems to show urine is the best bet for a field test, but I’m having trouble believing a police officer is going to ask you to pee in a cup out on the road.
Saliva sounds like something that could be administered easily, but…
Like the sentence right before it, that last one also cries out for a comparison to alcohol. I mean, if you’re behind the wheel and can’t balance on one foot while touching a finger to your nose and reciting the alphabet backwards – look, I don’t care whether it’s booze or pot that messed you up; they’re equally indefensible; I want then treated pretty much the same.
Ditto on leaving it where my kid can get at it: enjoy either, give her neither.
At the least, I think I’d push for *child-proof packaging *of ‘goodies’ laced with THC.
One of the problems with evaluating the harmfulness of pot, of course, is the irony that because the US Gov in its infinite wisdom classed it in the same category as drugs such as heroin, researchers haven’t been able to study it the way they would like to. Even if it is not fatal, I’m pretty sure we’d all agree no-one wants to see children OD’d on THC.
“So, let’s handle it that way. We’ve had pretty good results with leaving tobacco legal, but advertising that it’s a terrible idea. Why not have that be the way we handle the problem with marijuana?” I agree. Not sure I’ve seen that, though. And again, if we do that, while infusing gummies with THC, seems rather a mixed message.
Now that is a legitimate point. Many kids have gotten sick eating what they thought were normal brownies.
Do you still drive 55 as well?
Sorry; I live in Washington State and I think your opinion is ridiculous. You’re saying that us 7 million people who all overwhelmingly agree on a position can’t actually implement it until we get another 306 million people to all agree with us?
Oh. You mean the law was abused, not the drug itself. But I don’t understand what the concern is. Legalizing marijuana will allow the people who are abusing the law to get the product without abusing the medical marijuana laws. Are you concerned that kids will suddenly find greater access? Because at that point, I’d assume that kids will have as much access as they do to alcohol.
Ok, then what is your proposal? Decriminalization for the raw plant, but processed products prohibited for sale? Prohibition on only some forms of the processed product? Perhaps some legislation on the amount of sugar content the processed products should be allowed to contain?
Note, that the kid would be in just as dire straits if they’d downed some jell-o shots, which are an analogous product that’s legal to sell in my city.
That’s, in fact, vastly more dangerous. That’s pretty much my point. We’ve no problem altogether allowing people to consume, sell, keep at their place products that are much more dangerous than cannabis. Not only cannabis shouldn’t be treated less leniently than alcohol, tobacco, etc… It should be treated more leniently.
Worrying about the dangers of cannabis should be very low on the list. The only valid concern IMO is DUI (along with similar issues like operating machines tools or such…).