Marijuana legalization?

Great Debates
61

OK. Turns out that the stats are kind of all over the map, but generally pldennison’s memory was better than mine. From this abstract from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention:

For high school students, between 1991 and 1999,

Cigarette smoking (ever) has wavered between 69.5% and 71.3% and was 70.4% last year.
Tobacco use (frequent) has increased from 12.7% to 16.8%

Alcohol use (past 30 days) has wavered around the 1999 figure of 50%
Alcohol use (frequent episodic drinking) ticked up modestly from 1993 to 1997, but dropped to 31.5% in 1999, fairly close to the 1991 level of 31.3%

Drug use (ever) has picked up pretty steadily over the past decade and was 47.2% for marijuana last year.

Yep, making it illegal sure has kept the stuff out of kids’ hands.

62

I’m a little confused because I thought this thread was about marijuana, not drugs in general.

There are three main arguments against the legalization of marijuana: addiction, health risks, and crime.

Marijuana has not been proven physically addictive in any study. It does not alter brain chemistry. It has been proven only psychologically addictive. As far as that goes, I’m psychologically addicted to reading - I need to be in the middle of at least two books at any given time to be comfortable with the status of my brain.

Marijuana use has never been listed as the cause of death on any death certificate - there is no documented case of a marijuana overdose. Thus listing the threat of death as a reason for continued criminalization is not logical. It is damaging to the body, but far less so than alcohol or tobacco, and its use has many benefits whereas alcohol and tobacco do not. Marijuana is prescribed to many chemotherapy and anorexia patients to establish an appetite and lessen pain, and it has been proven to benefit glaucoma sufferers.

As far as crime is concerned, I don’t know a single stoner who would rob or kill anyone for more weed. Again, there is no physical addiction that would cause such desperation. I do, however, know recreational marijuana smokers that are vice-presidents of top corporations, successful lawyers, and doctoral candidates. (I have not seen any statistics on crime and marijuana, so personal experience will have to do. As I don’t believe any of the opposition here have seen any studies on this subject either, nor do they, admittedly, have any personal experience, experiential support should suffice.)

In addition, marijuana plants restore nutrients to the soil that have been depleted through farming, which is why it was prevalent during the 19th century in America. Also, the stalks can be used to make hemp, one of the strongest natural materials. This use alone would help to revitalize the ever-diminishing farming culture in the United States, and is an inherent benefit to decriminalization.

I have yet to hear a rational argument against the legalization of marijuana, but misinformation on the part of the media and fear on the part of the general populace tend to stifle logic. If anyone has a well-supported case in favor of the illegality of marijuana - not other drugs - I would be very interested in hearing it.

63

Althea said:

And you are exactly right, but a few people currently in the discussion cannot make a clear distinction between marijuana and other drugs, so they tend to group it with other drugs as if it were anything like them. I don’t suppose one can blame them; before I “became familiar” with it, all I knew was it was a drug and it was therefore addictive, counterproductive, and bad.

64

Just a couple of quick points:

The idea that psychological dependence just means that you think ‘that’s nice, let’s do it again’ is absolute crap. Whether the anxiety and out of character aggression that heavy smokers exhibit if they are not able to smoke for a couple of days comes from their mind or their body makes no difference, and psychological addiction is not an easy thing to overcome. In many ways, it’s harder to overcome than physical addiction, because it often involves a large change of lifestyle, rather than just going through the agony of physical withdrawal for a short amount of time (by short, I mean relative to a person’s lifetime). MJ smokers often fool themselves into thinking that the bad feelings they often have don’t have anything to do with the drug - it’s only when you get away from it for a while that you can put two and two together and realise that it wasn’t everyone else who was bringing you down all the time and making you prone to depression. You can’t claim that you know something to be non-addictive until you have made a genuine attempt to quit it forever (and yes, I know you only do it because it’s fun).

Another thing is the myth of the peace loving, always happy and friendly dope smoker. Think about all the people you have to be around to get and use the drug, and how nice they are, particularly if they’re cut off from their supply. They will always blame the other things in their life (their asshole boss, their stupid parents, cops), and never blame what they are smoking. And then they will say ‘but alcohol is worse’, which may or may not be true, but is plainly not a great argument.

Lastly, I want to talk about drug related deaths. When It was discovered that I smoked, my father told me that smoking grass leads to dysentry - death by diarrhoea. This was plainly absurd, and so I laughed at him, but he truly believed this. That said, there is no way that you can say mj has never played a part in a person’s death - whether contributing to road deaths (and don’t tell me about smoking making people safer - I’ve taken my life in my hands enough times in my stupider youth with people stoned who didn’t know the difference between very fast or very slow) or suicides from depression (either under the influence or suffering from ‘harmless psychological addiction’ withdrawal).

I reiterate my opinion that I think ALL drugs should be legalised (to ensure purity, remove criminal element and remove stigma), but people should be aware of their risks. I wish I had a dollar for every doper who agreed that dope can lead to schizophrenia, but ‘only if you’re predisposed to it’ - the problem is, most people don’t know they’re
‘predisposed’ until they land in that black hole. Drugs in general con your mind with instant gratification (the high) and delayed punishment (the crash/withdrawal).

HenrySpencer.

65

well, first of all, I did not mean to imply that “that’s nice, let’s do it again” is the extent of psychological addiction, so I apologize for not being clearer. I was just trying to make the distinction for those who are not familiar with the drug and/or the difference between the two types of addiction, the worse of which I will still hold is physical. Granted, psychological dependence is not a fun boat to ride, but I would rather be thinking “man, i wish i had i f%#ing joint” than experiencing physical pain and trauma which could in turn cause me to do things I would not otherwise do in order to alleviate it. I agree that people who smoke frequently can get quite testy when it’s not available, but then so can a person who hasn’t had their morning coffee. So what? I’ve never in my life seen someone hurt over it. And if the addiction hurts no one but the addict, let them have it. They chose it. At any rate, by “not addictive”, I meant not addictive in the sense that one is addicted to drugs in general, which is what IzzyR and others like him are afraid of. (The addiction that drives people to commit crimes against other people in order to sustain their habit.) I should have been more lucid about that and again I’m sorry.

HenrySpencer said:

I’m not sure I understand. Are you implying that recovery from physical addiction does not involve a large change of lifestyle? It’s my guess that for one to be physically addicted to something, it would have to play a pretty large role in that person’s everyday life; therefore they are probably psychologically addicted as well, so you probably wouldn’t be just going through the agony of physical withdrawal for a short amount of time. You make the difference sound like the difference between grounding and a spanking, in which case I’d definitely choose the spanking. But I believe it’s more like both the grounding AND the spanking.

As to the dysentery, I’m pretty skeptical. Gimme a link, or somethin, on that. I know cancers, I know brain damage, but I ain’t NEVA heard o’ no death-by-diarrhea dangers.

You also said:

And on that our opinions merge. I fail to see why more people cannot take this approach; it is the most mature and the most democratic, but let me ask you this–do you even think crack should be legalized? I’d like to say all drugs should be legal, but I haven’t quite come to a mental consensus on crack just yet.

66

I don’t know what kind of stuff you used to smoke, but I’ve never ran across any like it.
I’ve been a pot smoker, sometimes heavy and sometimes not, all my life. And I’ve hung with others who were regular users, also all my life.
By far the most common reaction to running out of dope is to say something like “bummer” and sit on one’s butt, watching the tube. Even for an extended period of time. Not once have I seen anyone go psycho. Not once. I’ve seen people “jones”, but the same can be said for any habit, as pointed out by others on this thread.
In fact, a lot of pot smokers will indeed share their last roach with a friend, even knowing that they’ll not get any more for a while. Not everyone, but most.
It’s the very nature of the supply system that there are bound to be dry spells.
Depressed? I don’t know. People get a little depressed all the time. Hard to say what the cause is. Unless you’re referring to clinical depression, which is a whole 'nuther story. I have seen assholes, mellowed by dope, return to being assholes when they come down.
Oh well. To each his/her own, eh? :wink:
Peace,
mangeorge

67

nevermore,

If someone is going to decide to break an addiction, they need to be mentally and emotionally motivated to do so. If their addiction is phychological, they generally spend more of their time making excuses for the drug, rather than thinking of ways to get off it, as opposed to purely physical addiction, where the addict HATES the effect of the drug (seeing at best it’s making their life bearable), and tries over and over to quit.

The idea that an addict ‘chose’ to be addicted is not quite right, particularly if they’ve been told over and over that the drug they’re about to start using has NO chance of getting them hooked. So what do you consider addiction? A close friend of mine who needed to save money for an overseas trip, but told me straight out he couldn’t stop buying a quarter-ounce every week (for about $100 Australian), because it would be like not buying food? Or my own case, where I was asked by a non smoking friend if I could quit for a whole month, and that seemed like an eternity not to partake? Or another friend who knew that it was making him less intelligent, which was affecting his study, but still kept doing it? I say that people should have a choice, but they should know exactly what they’re getting into.

Please reread my comments regarding the ‘dysentry’ - I was giving this as an example of an ignorant comment that nonetheless does not mean that every statement against dope is incorrect. I think if Crack was legalised and dispensed medically (you could only get it at a hospital), the market would fall dramatically, as dealers would lose their main market (addicts), as soon as their case became hopeless - they would be able to go to the doctor and get their fix. And not many people will go to the doctor to get high just for the heck of it - it’s just not that much fun.

mangeorge, all I want to say is that when you’re in the middle of something, it’s much harder to recognise exactly what’s going on, than when you take a step back. This isn’t just based on myself, but on many of my friends (most of whom no longer smoke). Needing to take a drug to make you a nice person, and becoming worse when you are not on it is not necessarily a great ad for that drug (refer to my comment before about instant gratification/delayed punishment). I don’t know you and have no reason to believe you’re not a great person when you’ve had a couple of spliffs or not, I just know what I’ve felt and seen myself.

HenrySpencer.

68

rather than continue to argue the fine points–your initial opposition to my view was your stance that marijuana is indeed addictive. My response was that it is, but not in a way detrimental to the world outside the drug user, as such that it should be illegal (according to those with opinions similar to those of IzzyR, and there are quite a few). If I’m not mistaken, you think psychological addiction is detrimental to the world outside the drug user, indeed as detrimental as physical addiction if not more so. If this is not your view, let us cease to argue on the grounds that we agree. If this is your view, explain to me why as it pertains to this drug remaining illegal. In other words, if you don’t think the drug should remain illegal because of psychological dependence, we have nothing pertinent to argue about, since my whole point in bringing up its “non-addictive” nature was to illustrate that it shouldn’t be touted as a reason to keep the drug illegal.

Thank you, drive through. ;j

69

Sorry for the lateness of my response. When I started using, it was a lot of fun. For a couple of years, anyway.
The drugs stopped working for me, meaning the drug life was ceased being fun. Trust me, addiction blows.

Tried to quit for close to 3 years before I ultimately did. (it’s hard). It took the help of a treatment center and Narcotics Anonymous. (I’ve been clean for 13 years, if your wondering)

Many people, including many medical proffesionals, consider MJ addictive. There is a 12 step group called Marijuana Anonymous.

I have a question for those of you who support MJ and other drugs being illegal. If they were legalized, would you use them? I don’t think you would. For me, and the people I know, the legality of the drug was never a factor in whether or not we used. I don’t think it is for anyone. (well, maybe a couple of people)

70

I haven’t read all the replies carefully, so I may have missed this: Marijuana stands apart from other controlled substances, and should be placed in the class of drugs permitted for medicinal purposes. I forget what number that classification is. (Drugs are classified as to whether they can be permitted for medicinal purposes or not, and the degree of control.)

It has been shown that marijuana is very effective in ameliorating the pains associated with cancer and provide other medical benefits to those who need those benefits. There are over half a dozen medical benefits associated with marijuana.

I don’t use any drugs, other than alcohol, so I’m not biased. I believe that marijuana should be permitted with a doctor’s prescription.

71

Here’s a strawman question for you and others who share your attitude. Suppose a new drug was discovered, very unlike marijuana, or any other drug currently out there, for that matter. It feels better than any other drug. 90% of those who use it will have no negative side affects whatsoever. The other 10% will, at some point, turn into homicidal maniacs, and will attempt to kill as many people as possible. There is no way to distinguish between the two groups of people. Should we (or, for pldennison, do we have the “right” to) ban this drug outright? Or do we say let’s concentrate on combatting the harmful effects that come out of it, and leave aside the cause?

I realize that this is a more extreme case than currently exists, obviously. But I want to see how far you guys take your positions, or what distinctions you would make.

nevermore,

I’ve stated no less than three times in this thread that I am not familiar enough with marijuana to comment on it specifically, and am commenting on drugs in general. Please stop suggesting otherwise.

72

The subject for this debate was limited to marijuana. I think if you want to expand it, you should start a new thread, but I also think that it is too late for that since there have been so many replies on drugs in general. I limited my comments to the initial subject for debate.

You hypothetical as nothing to do with marijuana. Some new drug which can have very harmful side effects. Marijuana is a known drug and it is badly needed for quite a few people who cannot legally take it. Any harmful effects must be balanced with the good it can do.

As I stated you cannot combine drugs as one topic, since there are many classifications of drugs. Aspirin is a drug. So is heroin.

73

If the decision were up to me and me alone, I would choose the second option.

74

quote:__________________________________________________
Why in the world would I be interested in the history of the drug laws? I care about whether they are justified or not. Other posters have at least succeded in addressing these issues. What you are bringing up is silliness.

The reason you should be interested in the history of drug laws is because you would see that marijuana was not made illegal because of any addictive or harmful properties, but rather because Dupont who had jsut come out with Nylon, and big business had invested heavily in pulpwood forsets. The lobbying power of these institutions combined to take the competition (hemp) off the market. And whatever “harmful” aspects of marijuana were largely exxagerated. Threfore our current law making it illegal was instituted largely so corporate america could make more money. Threfore it is NOT justified on the grounds you are saying it is.

As far as it being harmful and illegal I will not go into it as it has been substantially covered. I do agree that there may be harmful effects and do not advocate anyone not knowing what they are getting into taking it.
But otherwise it is up to the individual (hopefully one that knows about what they are ingesting) to make that decision for themselves.
Personally I think that legalization is a lofty goal to reach, but decriminizin Marijuana would be far better for “society” than the current incredible laws we have. It is a victimless crime and should be treated as one.

As far as legalizing raising usage, there have been studies in other countries that show that initially use would rise slightly, after a period of a year or so, level off and gradually decrease below initial pre-legalization usage.

75

Welcome to the Straight Dope Message Board. Perhaps a quick read of the archives of Cecil Adams’ columns will help you learn some pretty neat stuff, including the fact that you just posted something without factual support.

76

I explained earlier my rationale for hijacking the thread. The reason this thread has drifted off track so completely is because not a single person took up the challenge by the OP to oppose legalizing marijuana. But I apologize to anyone who feels that I have stifled what would otherwise have been a debate on this matter.

pldennison,

Wow! Well, you are certainly consistent.

77

Izzy: I just hope it isn’t a foolish consistency. I simply feel that a cost-benefit analysis would bear out the idea that it is better to err on the side of freedom. There is a chance that commercial airliners are going to kill several hundred people every year, but we still take that risk.

For similar reasons, I oppose efforts in several states to lower the DUI limit to a BAC of 0.08. The cost of enforcement nowhere near justifies the extremely marginal benefits of lowering the BAC to a place where a glass of wine at dinner makes one legally drunk.

78

You are, however, differentiating between drunk driving and drugs in that with drunk driving you apparently accept some limits, while with drugs you don’t.

I myself am vehemently opposed to seatbelt laws on libertarian grounds (I don’t buy the “government owns the roads” idea that someone was trying to push earlier). But in this case there is no real potential victim other than the person themselves. Everyone else is affected indirectly. (In the case of drugs you may come to harm others directly)

I wonder if one day the government will attempt to mandate that all automobile drivers and passengers wear motorcycle helmets. I guarentee that a study would conclude that many lives would be saved if this were done.

I also think the government has no business banning suicide.

79

I would accept “driving while high” laws to the same extent that I accept “driving while intoxicated” laws, but I would not accept a ban on drugs any more than I would accept a ban on alcohol. Not like I have a dog in the fight; I’ve never used anything besides alcohol and I am unlikely to try, legal or not. But I believe that human adults have a right to abuse their bodies or alter their minds in whatever way they want as long as they aren’t harming anyone else.

Heaven help us. If there’s one thing the government excels at, it’s trying to save us from ourselves. They’ll probably make everyone wear airbag suits or some nonsense.

80

Exactly, which is why I tried to explain the difference between its type of dependence and the type you are (or seem to be) familiar with. I was attempting to show you that, since I’m under the impression that you support all drugs being banned, marijuana is not exactly the same. Just trying to see if you would still have an argument if you knew this. If you specifically do not care to know more or argue about marijuana, then I’m sorry. I just thought since the thread is about it, you might have some interest in discussing it.

Could you be a little more specific with this? As in, are you referring to drug crimes, devastation of families, violence brought on by an altered state, or all of the above?

Now this deserves a thread all its own, and for the record I agree with you totally.