If marijuana would become a “gateway drug” then why isn’t tobacco a gateway drug now. Surely the addictive properties of tobacco would be more likely to incite a need for that greater high than pot.
I wish I had posted earlier to Kings_Gambit1 but now is as good a time than any. Everyone has made the point that you cannot ban drugs that cause physical harm becuase there are so man legal drugs that cause just as much harm, heck McDonalds should be classified as a dealer, but then you go on to say:
Would there be a burden on society because of the legalisation of pot? You make the assumption that becuase it is available, it will be used irresponsibly. It’s like the old question your mum used to ask you, “If all your friends were jumping off a a bridge, would you join them?” The answer is no. If you wanted to try pot, it has been shown in this thread that it is quite easy to get hold of the stuff. Heck you could fly to Amsterdam and even do it legit. But the majority of the population don’t, becuase the majority of the population don’t care. If I am walking down a supermarket aisle and I see a new product for sale I may want to try it. But that doesn’t mean it will definitely be on my shopping list next week. Yes people could behave irresponsibly with legalisation but it didn’t happen with alcohol, or tobacco. We have been given the choice to do what we like with these drugs and as such we should be given the right with pot. The laws are there to protect us, not to mother us and as such we should be given the choice rather than hiding behind a hypocritical system.
At first lekatt you just weren’t making a good argument. Now you’re just not making sense. What has religion, or lack there of, got to do with legalising pot?
This is the first time I’ve ever posted to a thread regarding this particular topic. Since I had some extra time on my hands at work today, I decided to do some very quick google research because I thought I saw a lot of bogus assertions here. Please note that it has been very difficult because of the network’s “Unauthorized Web Site” filter – I probably could have found a lot of really great citations, but had to settle for just a few. (Side note: I find it odd what sites this public employer’s server will allow me to view versus what they won’t. There seems to be no rhyme nor reason to it.)
Eeeeehhhhnyway.
First, Tracer said on page 2:
While I had always been taught that marijuana is classified as a hallucinogen, but this sitesays otherwise:
This site also does not classify marijuana as a hallucinogen, but also contains some really great links to debunk a lot of bogus assertions I’ve seen in this thread.
There’s been no discussion at all regarding medicinal uses. Marijuana is a Schedule 1 drug, which means the government has deemed that it has no medicinal uses, among others. While this FDA report makes claims toward marijuana’s medicinal value, the government continues to keep the drug on Schedule 1. Why? I think I know… I think it’s all about the 1937 tax stamp act. I also believe the government makes more money off the war on drugs than it would if marijuana were legalized. I’d love to see a cost-comparison study, but think about all the jobs that are created to build our overcrowded prisons, which are filled with drug offenders. In fact as of 2002, 54% of the prison population is comprised of drug offenders --down from 60-some percent in the mid=90s. If we legalized… how many prison guards, doctors, food service employees, administrators and lawyers would suddenly be looking for work? I think the economic impact would really be enormous and there’s no hard data to say the federal government would make all its money back by taxing weed.
There was also some discussion regarding dependence vs. tolerance. I’m not going to compare alcohol to marijuana, but to merely cite the fact that marijuana does not cause physical dependence, and only rarely psychological dependence.
I’d also like to add, since a lot of people seem to think that alcohol and marijuana offer similar actions on the brain: pot does not make you less inhibited, like alcohol. From the same link above: (bolding mine)
(Which explains why I have more and weirder dreams when I’m out.)
In what I believe to be the most important cite here, so far: footnoted refutations of many bogus assertions, which are actually much better arguments against legalization than “it’s just wrong!” This refutations include: (and be sure to scroll down to see the documentation for this information)
• Marijuana cases brain damage
• Marijuana damages the reproductive system
• Marijuana is a gateway drug
• Marijuana suppresses the immune system
• Marijuana is much more dangerous than tobacco
• Legal marijuana would cause carnage on the highways :rolleyes:
• Marijuana “flattens” human brain waves
• Marijuana is more potent today than in the past
• Marijuana impairs short-term memory
• Marijuana lingers in the body like DDT.
• There are over a thousand chemicals in marijuana smoke
• No one has ever died of a marijuana overdose. (That one is true, folks)
And finally, to answer the question posed by Lekatt, what would I tell my children? First, I do not plan to ever have children. However, if something should go horrribly wrong and I do, this is what I’d tell them: The Truth. Question Authority. Think for yourself. Arm yourself with information and THEN make your informed, intelligent, rational decision. I’ll be happy to answer questions and help you research. And do not ever listen to anything Lekatt says. Ever. Because you’d get as much well-researched information from watching Fox News.
For the record… I’m all for legalization of the NON-addictive psychoactive drugs and could have written lezlers post, except for the law school part. And yes, I think alcohol and nicotine should be illegal, while other drugs like marijuana, should not.
I said that if pot were legalized, the number of people who use pot will increase by a significant amount. The increase in the overall number of pot smokers means there will be an increase in the number of people who smoke pot irresponsibly and/or develop addiction-like traits (i.e. smoking too much, affecting other parts of their life, etc.). Like with any drug, there is a certain percentage of people who, for a variety of reasons, will not use in moderation and in a responsibile way.
I also stated that the ease of availability and decreasing social stigma that comes with legalization will have a big influence on creating the scenario above. I believe there are a large amount of people in our society who under legal circumstances would smoke pot, but currently do not, because: a) they don’t know where to find it in their current situation, b) they are afraid of being arrested, c) they are afraid they may be randomly tested at work, d) they are just plain tired of trying to “score” in an underground black market.
If pot were legal, these people would be free from all of this, and would buy pot. Of these “new” pot smokers, a certain percentage will develop habitual pot smoking traits (smoking everyday, multiple times). Some of these people will smoke irresponsibly (driving, before work, etc.). Some of these people will become full out pschologically addicted; Other parts of their life will begin to suffer.
I understand the freedom of choice issue. I just see a lot of people developing real problems if pot were legal. People who would not develop these problems had pot remained illegal. I guess I see it as hoards of “Joe/Jane Six Pack’s” turning into vaporous pot sloths.
Again, I do believe the majority of pot smokers are responsible, hard-working individuals, who use in moderation. It’s the other people that I am worried about.
Do you see my point now?
As I said before, why not push to have the severity of the existing decreased, while maintaining illegal status?
I see your point. I just want your citations. Prove your point; this is Great Debates, not IMHO.
You might start with Prohibition statistics and look at alcohol usage levels after 1933, when Prohibition was lifted. Next, I’d check out drug usage levels after the Netherlands (and Denmark?) legalized.
Actually, what you are citing is that 54% of the FEDERAL prison population is comprised of drug offenders. A vast, majority of crimes, and most of the violent crimes, are handled at the state level. And even fewer than that are for marijuana, as opposed to cocaine, heroin, or meth. According to [, only one percent of all state prison inmates were serving time for marijuana possession. On the federal level, [url=http://www.ussc.gov/ANNRPT/2001/SBTOC01.htm]this site](]this site[/url) points out that only 2.3 percent (186 people) are in prison for simple possession of marijuana. Nearly 98% were in for trafficking charges.
The perception that the drug war, and the prison service industry, is somehow a money-making enterprise or is a cash-cow for the government is almost laughable. I find it incredibly far fetched that any of the States, or the Federal Government, thinks that the prison system is a good way to spend money.
Some cites on the addictive properties of marijuana:
I agree that marijuana is not nearly as addictive as other drugs, and not necessarily physically addictive unless accompanied by heavy use over a long period of time. But I think it is a misstatement to say that marijuana is not addictive at all.
Actually, according to this site states that there is a link between frequent marijuana use and increased violent behavior. It goes on to say that young people who use marijuana weekly are nearly four times more likely than non-users to engage in violence. Now, I’m not saying that marijuana causes violent actions, but, once again, I think it is simplistic to portray marijuana users as completely non-violent.
I’m not King’s Gambit, but you could, of course, read the entire thread and scroll up to my first post on this page. You can also go to the last link in my most recent post. In there, it states:
OK, I have a stack o’books around my room left over from my English 101 thesis last semester on this very subject.
My research revealed some very interesting facts.
Many, if not most of the studies, which show how “harmful” marijuana is were, in fact, rigged or outright falsified.
Studies that found that MJ supresses the immune system failed to report that, while immunity was suppressed initailly, the immune system “bounced back” to normal with continued use.
A study that found MJ was physically addictive was done by injecting mice with straight THC at hundreds, if not thousands, of times the dosage that even the heaviest pot smoker would use, continuously for a period of several days, then suddenly injected them with a drug that stripped the THC from the brain cells. Again, no real-life applicability, just a study deliberately rigged to show that POT IS EVIL.
Actually, the majority of the studies that have found serious negative effects of MJ, especially with regards to its addictive/dependency producing potential were done using injected THC at dosages much higher than even the most determined pot smoker would be able to take in by smoking.
Also, the amotivational syndrome has been shown to be largely myth- actually if anything, smoking pot is more a symptom than a cause. Many “amotivated” pot smokers were found to have symptoms of depression. It has been suggested by researchers that the amotivational syndrome may in fact be a symptom of depression for which the person is self-medicating by using MJ. Of those not suffering from depression, they may have simply been going through a lazy phase which included smoking pot, and quitting MJ use was just a part of getting off their duffs and doing something.
One study which seemed to show an amotivational syndrome actually found to the contrary. The researchers tried using financial rewards to induce people to do additional work. This tactic was not effetive with the pot smokers. However, it was found that if the reward for doing boring tasks was to be allowed to do more interesting tasks, the MJ smokers were just as motivated, if not more motivated, than their non-smoking peers. So, it may just be a matter of what motivates you.
Oh, and the “pot causes brain damage” study? The monkeys in that study were essentially suffocated by forcing them to inhale the equivalent of sixty or so joints in the space of five minutes with no outside air or oxygen being allowed in.
Most of the studies that show pot has severe effects on memory outside of the effects on short-term memory while actually under the influence have been soundly refuted. Most of the rest, though they have not actually been refuted, have never had their results duplicated in other studies using the same methodology.
As for “carnage on the highways”, two separate studies have proven that people who drive under the influence of pot actually cause fewer accidents than people who have used no drugs whatsoever. Apparently, stoned drivers drive more cautiously, and therefore get into fewer accidents. This is not an endorsement of driving stoned, of course. Since reaction time is slower, a driver may not be able to react in time to some idiot who does something stupid like an unsignalled lane change or cutting them off in traffic, but the fact remains that a stoned driver is considerably less likely than a drunk, or even an unimpaired, driver to be the at-fault party in an accident.
The only major negative health effect caused by smoking pot is a slightly higher risk of respiratory infection than non-smokers, but is still less than cigarette smokers.
My main reference is Understanding Marijuana by Mitch Earlywine, if anyone’s interested in making a trip to the library.
That’s ludicrous. According to them, every country in the world is a transit or transhippment point for drugs (which probably is true to some extent, since there always be some drug being exported from/ imported in any country, but stating so isn’t exactly helpful.
Sorry. All countries except the USA, where, according to the CIA, no drug ever transit.
Not very many. My husband works in a prison. Out of 2,500 inmates incarcerated there, only a handful are in for marijuana-related offenses. I think he told me that the number of those incarcerated for posession was two or three, and they had vast amounts of marijuana-- amounts which could not remotely be construed as “personal use.” (The DA simply didn’t have enough evidence to charge them with trafficking.) He doesn’t have a single case (nor knows of any local prison which has) of a “kid with caught with a joint in his pocket”.
As Hamlet pointed out, some of these statistics can be misleading. “Drug offender” covers everything from marijuana usage to heroin. “Posession” can include those with truckloads of the stuff in their garage.
You’ll get no arguments with me that non-violent drug offenders are taking up too much space in our prisons, but very, very few of them are people who just had a small amount of personal-use drugs. Of course, miscarriages of justics happen when hard-ass judges want to “send a message”, but it’s certainly not as common as you might think.
Erm, not that lekatt needs any refutation, but exactly none of the companies I’ve ever worked for have conducted any kind of drug testing on their employees. In fact, one company I have worked for, a major national organization, made it quite clear to us when hired that they have no policy for drug testing and as long as you didn’t show up to work intoxicated they frankly don’t give a damn what you do in your spare time. This is a company rated in the Wall Street Journal’s top ten best work environments, with a 98% rate of job satisfaction as reported by the employees. We were actually told later that this was the highest rating ever achieved by any company since this annual poll had been started. There’s a whole lot to be said for working for a company who doesn’t treat you like a petty criminal the moment you walk in the door. Potheads or no, that’s the highest-paced, most productive, most enjoyable, and by far most satisfying job I’ve ever had. I worked with more dedicated, intelligent, hard-working people there than I have anywhere else. Put that in yer pipe and smoke it, lekatt.
Ah yes, and I do smoke recreationally. I really can’t stand the flavor of most alcohol, so when others have a beer in the evening, I’ll have a puff or two of the devil-weed to mellow out.
Did I? Like I said, you assume a set of circumstances that cannot be proven. You believe that legalisation is going to cause uncontrolled proliferation, even against what we know of the current effects on the populous through legal tobacco and alcohol.
Again you assume that because it becomes legal, everyone will just suddenly believe pot is good, and every corner shop is going to be selling it. That is not going to be the case. lekatt has proven that people don’t just change their minds. Legality is a factor in the stigma behind drug use, but it is not the only factor. If a person was in such a need to try it they would do so now, against the law. Obviously though there are a lot of people who would try it if it became legal and convenient. Those people are the same people who would probably try a new chocolate bar if it appeared in the shop. It is nice once in a while, but people know there limits. As for those people whom you describe, those
“Joe/Jane Six Pack’s” who will smoke themselves into a pot induced stupor, well to be honest, we’re not missing a cancer cure in the bunch. These are the kinds of people who would just as easily drink themselves into an equal stupor.
Anyway, protecting the minority isn’t a great excuse. The minority aren’t protected from drinking, smoking, owning guns in some countries. If these people are given the freedoms to do this then everyone should be given the freedom to use a drug less addictive and less dangerous than those already legalised.
Also:
We have already reclassified cannabis in the UK: Cite
What’s the point? If you think legalisation will cause chaos, won’t declassification do the same, only on a lesser degree. More people will start using, which means more money going into criminal organisations rather than into the Government. Which would you prefer?
Hoffman, D.; Brunnemann, K.D.; Gori, G.B.; and Wynder, E.E.L. On the carcinogenicity of marijuana smoke. In: V.C. Runeckles, ed., Recent Advances in Phytochemistry. New York: Plenum, 1975.
Found that there are 50 to 70 % more carcinogenic hydrocarbons in marijuana smoke than in tobacco smoke.
Zhu, L.X.; Stolina, M.; Sharma, S.; Gardner, B.; Roth, M.D.; Tashkin, D.P.; and Dubinett, S.M. Delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol inhibits antitumor immunity by a CB-2 receptor-mediated, cytokine dependent-pathway. J Immunology 165(1):373-380, 2000.
Found that marijuana use may promote respiratory cancer and disrupt the immune system.
Tashkin, D.P. Pulmonary complications of smoked substance abuse. West J Med 152:525-530, 1990.
Found that smoking marijuana increases the risk of lung infections.
Found that long term use of marijuana may increase the risk of bronchitis, emphysema, as well as cancer of the head, neck and lungs.
Nuttall, SL; Raczi, JL, et. al. Effects of smoking and cannabis use on markers of oxidateive stress in exhaled breathe condensate. Division of Medical Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, England, 2003.
Found that repeated smoking of marijuana causes a deterioration in lung functioning. Marijuana use may decrease the occurence of antioxidants that protect cells from cancerous tumors.
Sridhar, K.S.; Raub, W.A.; Weatherby, N.L., Jr.; Metsch, L.R.; Surratt, H.L.; Inciardi, J.A.; Duncan, R.C.; Anwyl, R.S.; and McCoy, C.B. Possible role of marijuana smoking as a carcinogen in the development of lung cancer at a young age. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 26(3):285-288, 1994.
Marijuana smoking may cause cancer, especially in younger smokers.
Mason, A.P., and McBay, A.J. Ethanol, marijuana, and other drug use in 600 drivers killed in single-vehicle crashes in North Carolina, 1978Ð1981. J Forensic Sci 29(4):987-1026, 1984
Marijuana use may increase the risk of fatal accidents.
Cite? A majority of pro-legalization sites I’ve visited have stated that, while low doses of marijuana may not effect drivers, and although alcohol is much worse, marijuana does impair driving ability. The myth that a high driver is more cautious is the exact same myth that moderately drunk drivers pay more attention and are better drivers also.
If you ignore the cancerous, cardiopulmanory, lung, and psychiatric effects, I guess the only major negative effect is infection. I just wouldn’t ignore those.
I will agree that many of the studies done in the 1970 and 80’s were reactionary and maybe not the best science. But since that time, there have been more studies confirming the negative effects of cannabis. The main argument, it seems to me, is that marijuana use has less negative effects than alcohol and tobacco, which, to a point, is true. However, as a wise man once said:
In all fairness to the master, I’m not sure he’s updated his research in this area, and I honestly don’t have much of a problem with saying marijuana’s effects may be less harmful than alcohol and tobacco. But it is far from harmless.
I’m not understanding the relevance of your arguments.
#1. There are alternate ways to injest marijuana than smoking it. Smoking anything isn’t good for your respiratory system. That’s pretty much a give-in. Focusing on the detrimental effects of smoking is ignoring the true issue: the effect of the drug. You’re focusing on the method of injestion not the effects of the drug itself. Focusing on the method of injestion is a waste of time considering the fact that smoking is legal. The harmful effects of the substance, not the method of injestion, is what should be at issue (considering there are alternate methods of injestion and that the act of smoking (regardless of the substance being smoked) in and of itself, is not and never will be, illegal).
#2. Arguing that it’s less harmful than smoking or alcohol but that it’s still harmful also seems rather pointless. The argument is about whether or not it should be legalized. Alcohol and tobacco are legal. You’ve pretty much admitted that alcohol and tobacco are more harmful than marijuana. Your conclusion (correct me if I’m wrong about your conclusion here) is that because it’s nontheless harmful, it shouldn’t be legalized. Even though it’s less harmful than legal substances. That’s an illogical conclusion. It’s basically saying that something being potentially harmful is grounds for criminalizing it. You could very well argue that fast food should be made illegal with that method of reasoning.
You mean it isn’t legal?? I’ve gotta phone home to the mothership and warn everyone!
“Dear Humboldt County…”
I’ve seen (first hand) enough completely insane misappropriation of taxpayer monies in the “war on weed” to choke a hippo.
Biothermic/heat-seeking survsurveillance aircraft, black-clad S.W.A.T. teams running indiscriminately through the woods with semi-automatic machine guns, oblivious of privacy and property lines, helicopters thumping away with cargos of 4-wheelers, generators, water-tanks.
A raid on a Columbian drug lord? Nope. Just a small little operation to seperate a couple of patches of plants from the pacifist hippy couple with 2 kids who grew them.
It should’ve been legalized yesterday…oh wait…it already was legal yesterday.
Well, I’m not going to do a thorough study-by-study, but sitting here with a copy of Earlywine’s Understanding Marijuana: a new look at the scientific evidence and Morgan and Zimmer’s Marijuana Myths, Marijuana Facts: a review of the scientific evidence on my lap for reference…
I can’t do a link right now because my computer tends to crash if I have more than one browser window open, but I’ll refer you to Erowid. I cited an article I found there in my term paper. See, what you do is you study leaf- in othere words, the part of the plant nobody actually smokes, to get these results. Studies done on bud, the part people actually do smoke, found that it actually contains fewer carcinogenic tars than tobacco. Also, there is much research that suggests that tars, etc. aren’t the big factor in lung cancer- radioactivity is. Seems that there is a radioactive chemical in cigarettes that is not found in tobacco. At any rate, the biggest factor is how much smoke a smoker is exposed to over time, and even the heaviest pot smoker is probably not sucking in as much smoke as your average cigarette smoker. Joints are generally only about half the size of a cigarette, and it’s a pretty rare pothead who sucks back a half-dozen or so joints a day. During my own heaviest smoking years, I averaged less than one, and my heaviest smoking friends usually didn’t smoke more than 2-3.
From Understanding Marijuana
“A retrospective study of over 64,000 patients showed no increases in risk for many types of cancer once alcohol and cigarette use were controlled for.”
Already addressed that one. It’s a slight increase.
May. Actually Tashkin found that chronic marijuana smoking is associated with any increased risk of obstructive lung disease. An Australian study actually found that pot smokers actually had a lower prevalance of emphysema and asthma than the general population. I’ve already addressed the cancer issue.
Not a myth. Studies have proven this. From Marijuana Myths, Marijuana Facts “Studies have also found that subjects tend to drive more cautiosly after smoking marijuana. They take fewer risks, drive at lower speeds and maintain a greater distance from other cars.” Three separate studies have found that not only are mj smokers less often at fault in fatal accidents than drinkers, but also drug free drivers. Like I said before, toking and driving is not a good idea because it might impair function enough that if somebody else on the road does something stupid the stoned driver might not be as able to avoid an accident that someone else’s careless/reckless/aggressive driving caused, but people driving high are not out causing carnage on America’s streets and highways.
I’m not ignoring them. The studies that have found them have been refuted. As for the cardio part, after an initial minor spike, blood pressure after smoking pot is actually reduced. The same is true of massage, but I don’t see people suggesting that massage is bad for you because of this. If anything, it’s a suggestion that people with uncontrolled extremely high blood pressure maybe shouldn’t smoke pot.