Marijuana

[JeraJaclyn]

2) In matters regarding health and consumption of drugs, the burden of proof has a higher threshold in order to acertain the absence of harm..

 

We've had a significant amount of time (40+ years) with pot in our society to see if marijuana causes any serious harm, and we haven't seen it. Here is the question: Should everything be illegal until it is "proven" safe, or should everything be legal until it is "proven" harmful?

 

We've done studies on animal models. We've looked at the epidemiological evidence. We see very little harm. What reason do we have to keep it illegal? How long do we have to wait before there is enough evidence of low-to-no-level harm?

[UTPEOPLE]

Why wouldn't people grow their own? I know people who grow their own Salvia as houseplants...

 

I think people don't grow tobacco because it really doesn't grow very well in our climate...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario_tobacco_belt. it grows fine down here

 

most people dont want to, plus dont have access to gardening room in urban centers

[takashi]

I haven't read the entire thread so I am not sure if this has been mentioned. The legalization of marijuana would likely lead to more car accidents as people will "get high and drive". We already have so many accidents due to drinking alcohol. I have no doubts in my mind that we would see a huge spike in car accidents if teenagers are able to get a hold of marijuana legally.

[NewfieMike]

I haven't read the entire thread so I am not sure if this has been mentioned. The legalization of marijuana would likely lead to more car accidents as people will "get high and drive". We already have so many accidents due to drinking alcohol. I have no doubts in my mind that we would see a huge spike in car accidents if teenagers are able to get a hold of marijuana legally.

 

haha, why would teenagers legally be able to get a hold of marijuana?

[JeraJaclyn]

I haven't read the entire thread so I am not sure if this has been mentioned. The legalization of marijuana would likely lead to more car accidents as people will "get high and drive". We already have so many accidents due to drinking alcohol. I have no doubts in my mind that we would see a huge spike in car accidents if teenagers are able to get a hold of marijuana legally.

 

This in itself is not a reason to make smoking marijuana illegal. Driving while on your cell phone increases car accidents, but that doesn't mean that cell phone usage should be illegal. It means that driving while on a cell phone should be illegal, just like driving while drunk or driving while using pot should be illegal. You can't say that something should be illegal because "if it is legalized than some people will break the law!" That is the whole point, if it is legal than we can still establish laws around the drug with appropriate punishment for each crime. For example, a 25 year old smoking pot in his basement doesn't deserve to be sent to jail, while a 25 year old driving and smoking deserves to be punished. Our current marijuana laws do not punish based on risk or effect on society, it punishes based on an arbitrary rules about what a proper person aught not to be putting in their body.

[UTPEOPLE]

We've had a significant amount of time (40+ years) with pot in our society to see if marijuana causes any serious harm, and we haven't seen it. Here is the question: Should everything be illegal until it is "proven" safe, or should everything be legal until it is "proven" harmful?

 

We've done studies on animal models. We've looked at the epidemiological evidence. We see very little harm. What reason do we have to keep it illegal? How long do we have to wait before there is enough evidence of low-to-no-level harm?

 

in matters of public health, it is better to err on the side of caution (precautionary principle), because if something is legalized that turned out later to cause significant harm, you cannot reverse the harm on such a large scale. Would you rather take a drug that has been proven safe, or one that has been proven harmful?

 

Animal models are helpful, but does not paint the full picture. Case in point, thalidomide does not cross mice placentas, but does cross human placentas, leading to a whole generation of irrepairable harm. As leapy mentioned earlier, epidimeological studies only show correlations, and in the same vein that it cannot prove a link of weed to cancer or obesity, it cannot disprove it either. Given the precautionary principle and the lack of a tangible, valuable BENEFIT to widespread use of weed, there is little reason to legalize weed.

[JeraJaclyn]

in matters of public health, it is better to err on the side of caution (precautionary principle), because if something is legalized that turned out later to cause significant harm, you cannot reverse the harm on such a large scale. Would you rather take a drug that has been proven safe, or one that has been proven harmful?

 

Animal models are helpful, but does not paint the full picture. Case in point, thalidomide does not cross mice placentas, but does cross human placentas, leading to a whole generation of irrepairable harm. As leapy mentioned earlier, epidimeological studies only show correlations, and in the same vein that it cannot prove a link of weed to cancer or obesity, it cannot disprove it either. Given the precautionary principle and the lack of a tangible, valuable BENEFIT to widespread use of weed, there is little reason to legalize weed.

 

I don't understand your reasoning, what do you mean by "benefit"? Like a health benefit? Because we have those for marijuana. We know that it decreases pain. Do you mean benefit to society? Legalizing pot would reduce crime, violence, and would help our economy. Do you mean benefit on a personal level? Smoking marijuana makes some people happy, it is pleasurable to some people.

 

Now what harm does it have? Very little.

 

On the flip side lets talk about Big Macs. What health benefits does it have? Why isn't it illegal.

 

Things don't have to have a benefit for them to be legal, they just have to not be harmful to society. Show me conclusive evidence that marijuana use in itself has been harmful to society in the last 40 years. The only harm that has come from marijuana comes directly from the fact that it is illegal.

[Leon]

"All substances are poisons; there is none which is not a poison. The right dose differentiates a poison and a remedy."

 

 

-Paracelsus (1493-1541)

[The Law]

this wont neccesarily happen. If weed is made legal, there will almost certainly be a significant sin tax slapped on it. This will increase the cost of weed. Illegally smuggled weed (by the same gangs/venues that currently bring us weed) will still have its significant niche (as with illegally smuggled cigs) because the opportunity to make money is still there.

 

Again you are missing the point here. There is an illegal market for cigarettes too. The government still makes a killing off its sales though!! As it stands now there is no competition for the illegal market. People have no way to obtain it legally. Therefore, the government makes absolutely no money on its sales, and in fact - spends more money on prosecution of marijuana-related offenses.

 

Will sale of drugs go away? No.

Will this mean the government cannot still earn a huge source of revenue from its sales? Absolutely not. Just look at smoking, despite the fact smuggled cigarette sales have risen, a huge portion of people still obtain their cigarettes legally and the government still makes billions of dollars off of its sales.

 

 

To emphasize again:

1. Marijuana's risks are along the same lines as those of alcohol and cigarette consumption. Arguably, the harmful effects are less devastating.

 

2. Continuing to have it illegal will not make people stop using it. We've seen it repeatedly in history, *cough* prohibition *cough*.

 

3. There is enormous amount to gain by legalizing it, instead of tying up resources (such as police offers, or money) on prosecuting possession of marijuana - the government can now earn a huge source of revenue (badly needed, look at our deficit) and can regulate the industry, to improve its safety.

 

4. People who are making claims about the risks associated with marijuana - you're right. There are risks. The underlying argument I will stand by is that the usage of marijuana will not change dramatically from what it is now among our population. People who want to try marijuana are going to do it, regardless of whether or not it is legal. So the things you may cite - driving while under the influence, health risks, etc - will not change dramatically, in my honest opinion.

 

Law is change we can believe in.

 

Turtle fence is coming Mikey. Just you wait and see!!!

 

 

K. My 10 minute break is over, on to the writing sample... lol

[Spleen Spirit]

I don't understand your reasoning, what do you mean by "benefit"? Like a health benefit? Because we have those for marijuana. We know that it decreases pain. Do you mean benefit to society? Legalizing pot would reduce crime, violence, and would help our economy. Do you mean benefit on a personal level? Smoking marijuana makes some people happy, it is pleasurable to some people.

 

Now what harm does it have? Very little.

 

On the flip side lets talk about Big Macs. What health benefits does it have? Why isn't it illegal.

 

Things don't have to have a benefit for them to be legal, they just have to not be harmful to society. Show me conclusive evidence that marijuana use in itself has been harmful to society in the last 40 years. The only harm that has come from marijuana comes directly from the fact that it is illegal.

 

Exactly... it isn't a question of government protecting or not-protecting. Look at hundreds of legal substances that are harmful and legal. Even alcohol and cigarettes, two widely consumed products, are very clearly linked with a number of serious negative effects.

[deeman101]

Ok I'm in the "never had never will" camp but I support legalization. It can be safely enjoyed if done responsibly (like anything else in life). I had a lot of negative connotations about weed until I took a neuropsych course and found out theres literally almost NO freaking negative health effects! Hell the more you use it the less you need to get high! LOL.

 

As an aside, I get annoyed by people that say "but its not safee! Teh children!!!" LIFE is not safe! Its not meant to be safe. Deal with it. Or crawl back into your safe little hole and be a safe little hermit for the rest of your life.

 

 

EDIT: In the end if the 'merican fat cats figure out a way to exclusively make money off it I think it'd be legalized FAST.

[UTPEOPLE]

I don't understand your reasoning, what do you mean by "benefit"? Like a health benefit? Because we have those for marijuana. We know that it decreases pain. Do you mean benefit to society? Legalizing pot would reduce crime, violence, and would help our economy. Do you mean benefit on a personal level? Smoking marijuana makes some people happy, it is pleasurable to some people.

 

Now what harm does it have? Very little.

 

On the flip side lets talk about Big Macs. What health benefits does it have? Why isn't it illegal.

 

Things don't have to have a benefit for them to be legal, they just have to not be harmful to society. Show me conclusive evidence that marijuana use in itself has been harmful to society in the last 40 years. The only harm that has come from marijuana comes directly from the fact that it is illegal.

 

The benefits of reducing crime, violence and whatnot through legalizing weed is a conjecture that is not supported by the increase in illegal trafficking associated with other legal drugs such as tobacco). Weed can reduce pain in patients, which is why it is already legal for treatment, but this benefit of weed is inapplicable to the general population. And while smoking weed might be pleasurable, this is not a sufficient reason to risk public health.

 

Though unfortunate, we are caught in a logical loop. Because of fears that weed may have negative effects (physical or psychological), it is unethical to conduct clinical trials on non-ill people to observe chronic effects. Without the clinical trials, we cannot eliminate (beyond a reasonable doubt) that weed MIGHT cause a public healthcare issue, and therefore the precautionary principle (which governs EVERYTHING in public policy, from nuclear power to drug approval) forbids the legalization of pot.

 

Without multiple epidimeological studies linking clinically significant health BENEFITS to weed use, there is no reason for the government to fund further research into the potential benefits of weed, and thus the drug will remain illegal. The burden of proof is on the weed supporters to show health benefits (applicable to the general population), in order to fuel the drive towards legalization. Given that we now know the effects of some drugs are manifested only in offspring and may even skip generations, 40 years might not be enough to discover the effects of weed.

 

As for law, I do agree that people who want to get the drug will find ways, but if it is legalized, you dont think that the easier access will cause more people to toke?

[blind_synergy]

They don't.

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090626102332.htm

 

The study showed that Europe had a high proportion of deaths related to alcohol, with 1 in 10 deaths directly attributable (up to 15% in the former Soviet Union). Average alcohol consumption in Europe in the adult population is somewhat higher than in North America: 13 standard drinks per person per week (1 standard drink = 13.6 grams of pure ethanol and corresponds to a can of beer, one glass or wine and one shot of spirits) compared to North America's 10 to 11 standard drinks.

 

"France has the highest rate of alcoholism in the world"

http://www.alcohol-abuse-essentials.com/Alcohol_Abuse_and_World_Statistics.html

 

Good point. I've been proven wrong. Must have been a poorly researched Time article I read a while back. The evidence still does show, however, that light supervised drinking as teens and young adults does decreases the occurances of future alcohol abuse.

 

If it wasn't exam time, I'd look for more articles;

 

http://www.jointogether.org/news/research/summaries/2009/uk-researchers-say-its.html

 

However, recent research by Penn State suggested that heavy supervised drinking as a youth may increase chances of future alcohol related abuse. The key seems to be moderation (as it always is in basically everything).

[Tango Charlie]

If weed is legal people will either buy it from a store, a friend who knows his stuff, or grow it themselves. The black market for weed in a society where weed is legal isn't even worth discussing, it would be so insignificant. People can't grow tobacco plants in their basement and yet the market for illegal cigarettes is insignificant compared to illegal drugs. So stop drawing parallels to black market cigarettes, there isn't any point to be made there.

 

Furthermore, the government doesn't exist to tell people what they can and can't do to their own bodies. It's been forced into that role to an extent by religious people who think it's their god-given right to tell other people what to do, but making it illegal to get high is inconsistent with the kind of society we nominally live in.

[deeman101]

Wait theres a black market for cigarettes? LOL!!! Ok stolen / smuggled packs from legit manufacturers I can understand but I can't imagine growing your own tobacco and making your own cigarettes is that lucrative.

[blind_synergy]

The benefits of reducing crime, violence and whatnot through legalizing weed is a conjecture that is not supported by the increase in illegal trafficking associated with other legal drugs such as tobacco). Weed can reduce pain in patients, which is why it is already legal for treatment, but this benefit of weed is inapplicable to the general population. And while smoking weed might be pleasurable, this is not a sufficient reason to risk public health.

 

Though unfortunate, we are caught in a logical loop. Because of fears that weed may have negative effects (physical or psychological), it is unethical to conduct clinical trials on non-ill people to observe chronic effects. Without the clinical trials, we cannot eliminate (beyond a reasonable doubt) that weed MIGHT cause a public healthcare issue, and therefore the precautionary principle (which governs EVERYTHING in public policy, from nuclear power to drug approval) forbids the legalization of pot.

 

Without multiple epidimeological studies linking clinically significant health BENEFITS to weed use, there is no reason for the government to fund further research into the potential benefits of weed, and thus the drug will remain illegal. The burden of proof is on the weed supporters to show health benefits (applicable to the general population), in order to fuel the drive towards legalization. Given that we now know the effects of some drugs are manifested only in offspring and may even skip generations, 40 years might not be enough to discover the effects of weed.

 

As for law, I do agree that people who want to get the drug will find ways, but if it is legalized, you dont think that the easier access will cause more people to toke?

 

You're grasping at straws, man.

 

1) You seem to think legalizing something will increase illegal trafficking. Are you insane? Do you honestly think there's more illegal tobacco/alcohol trafficking now than there would be if they were both illegal?

 

2) Something should only be legalized if it's beneficial? It sounds like you're making an argument for making fast food, alcohol, and tobacco illegal rather than keeping weed illegal.

 

I've got news for. There are entire textbooks of research (spanning multiple generations) on marijuana and, compared to alcohol, marijuana has very few serious or negative long-term effects.

 

P.S. Imagine the tourism from the States. Additionally, the majority of Canadians support it:

 

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/35382/canadian_majority_would_legalize_marijuana1

 

There are no Canadian statistics on this but it's been shown in the States that younger generations more likely to support marijuana legalization. You're left with something like 20% support rate from people over 60 and a 70% support rate from people 20-30. We just need to wait for the old folks to kick the bucket.

[UTPEOPLE]

Wait theres a black market for cigarettes? LOL!!! Ok stolen / smuggled packs from legit manufacturers I can understand but I can't imagine growing your own tobacco and making your own cigarettes is that lucrative.

 

thats not what happens. There is a significant sin tax (up to two thirds of tobacoo cost) that governments place on tobacco grown/imported. In places like native reserves (where federal taxation is not permitted) or United states (slightly lower sin tax) with a differential amount of duty, the illegal smuggling across borders (and thus avoiding the duties and taxes that would normalize costs) means that there is a lucrative market. Furthermore, just having cigarrettes does fuel more violence. In a convenience store robbery, after cash, tobacco is the single most important commodity stolen in robberies. Arguably, since tobacco is meant to be consumed, it has benefits over cash in that the evidence of the crime naturally cleans itself up.

[UTPEOPLE]

You're grasping at straws, man.

 

1) You seem to think legalizing something will increase illegal trafficking. Are you insane? Do you honestly think there's more illegal tobacco/alcohol trafficking now than there would be if they were both illegal?

 

2) Something should only be legalized if it's beneficial? It sounds like you're making an argument for making fast food, alcohol, and tobacco illegal rather than keeping weed illegal.

 

I've got news for. There are entire textbooks of research (spanning multiple generations) on marijuana and, compared to alcohol, marijuana has very few serious or negative long-term effects.

 

P.S. Imagine the tourism from the States.

 

thats the route that society is going, actually, with the banning of fast food in school, banning of cigarette smoking in almost all public institutions, banning of public (not in a bar/home) drinking, and almost prohibitive sin taxes on tobacco.

 

alcohol and tobacco are mostly legal because of historical, cultural reasons that predate the modern society. If alcohol was to be "discovered' in the modern times, there is a good chance it will be illegal as well. Comparing weed to alcohol and saying that it is less harmful is more of an argument to make alcohol illegal than to make weed legal.

[Tango Charlie]

First step to seeing this become a reality and allowing Canada to reap the benefits is voting the Conservatives out of government, though. Think about this thread next election.

 

thats the route that society is going, actually, with the banning of fast food in school, banning of cigarette smoking in almost all public institutions, banning of public (not in a bar/home) drinking, and almost prohibitive sin taxes on tobacco

 

That's not the route society is going. Banning fast food from schools and taxing cigarettes isn't anywhere close to banning those things outright. They're completely different directions from making those things illegal for Canadians to partake of, and have no bearing on whether or not it is legal for adults to indulge in McDonald's or a pack of whatever cigarette or bottle of Jack Daniel's. You don't have a leg to stand on, suggesting society is moving toward banning these things.

[UTPEOPLE]

First step to seeing this become a reality and allowing Canada to reap the benefits is voting the Conservatives out of government, though. Think about this thread next election.

 

 

 

That's not the route society is going. Banning fast food from schools and taxing cigarettes isn't anywhere close to banning those things outright. They're completely different directions from making those things illegal for Canadians to partake of, and have no bearing on whether or not it is legal for adults to indulge in McDonald's or a pack of whatever cigarette or bottle of whatever alcohol. You don't have a leg to stand on, suggesting society is moving toward banning these things.

 

In a short 50 to 60 years, cigarettes have transformed from a status symbol into an ogre. With all the health campagns and what not, the government is making it very difficult for both consumers and tobacco companies (health lawsuits). This is implied prohibition if I ever see it, although it will be much later (or not at all) for tje government to ever openly declare tobacco illegal.

[JeraJaclyn]

alcohol and tobacco are mostly legal because of historical, cultural reasons that predate the modern society. If alcohol was to be "discovered' in the modern times, there is a good chance it will be illegal as well. Comparing weed to alcohol and saying that it is less harmful is more of an argument to make alcohol illegal than to make weed legal.

 

What if alcohol had been used in our society for at least 40 years without any evidence of anyone ever overdosing on it, without any hard evidence of negative health impact, without any hard evidence of addiction or dependence, and without any evidence that moderate use causes any health problems whatsoever. Do you think it would be made illegal then?

[blind_synergy]

It honestly sounds like UTPeople would like to live in a society where the govenrnment allows only "beneficial" behaviour and outlaws everything else.

[Tango Charlie]

In a short 50 to 60 years, cigarettes have transformed from a status symbol into an ogre. With all the health campagns and what not, the government is making it very difficult for both consumers and tobacco companies (health lawsuits). This is implied prohibition if I ever see it, although it will be much later (or not at all) for tje government to ever openly declare tobacco illegal.

 

I'm sorry, but you're very much out of touch if you think we're heading toward cigarette prohibition.

 

First off, prohibition. They tried that in the 20's with alcohol and it lead to greatly increased crime fueled by the illegal sale of alcohol, and guess what, people drank anyway. The prisons got more crowded, crime syndicates sprang up, and people drank anyway. Prohibition is a disaster, and its effects parallel what we see today. Prisons are crowded (especially in the States, and especially with people of colour who are unfairly punished compared to white people), gangs and criminal groups reap a tidy profit off of the sale of marijuana, and people get high anyway. It's a total disaster and a farce. The War on Drugs that the US started and imported into Canada has been a travesty from the word 'go'.

 

Second, the government taxes cigarettes quite a bit. Do you seriously think they would ever deny themselves the millions and millions of dollars they make every year off of taxing this stuff? Considering the above paragraph, and the reality that making cigarettes illegal would not prevent people from smoking, it would be ludicrous for the government to say essentially hand over all the profits they make from cigarettes to Al Capone wannabes who'd be running the illegal production and smuggling of cigarettes. Crime would go up, prisons would become fuller, people would still smoke, and the government would lose money. That's really the direction you think society is going with respect to cigarettes?

 

In short, legal but heavily taxed has proven to be the most effective solution to this sort of stuff. It's just a matter of time before Canada decriminalizes marijuana.

 

It honestly sounds like UTPeople would like to live in a society where the govenrnment allows only "beneficial" behaviour and outlaws everything else.

 

You might want to check out the medschool relationship thread on the Medical Student subforum, to give a little perspective on where the values UTPeople possesses are coming from (hint: China).

[UTPEOPLE]

It honestly sounds like UTPeople would like to live in a society where the govenrnment allows only "beneficial" behaviour and outlaws everything else.

 

Not really, but given the pervasiveness of the precautionary principle in public policy, this is what its gonna take to legalize weed. Just the way the current system is, and the trend points towards intensifying this principle, not relaxing it.

 

And this is why I say governments wont ever openly declare it illegal, just make it very difficult for users. In this regard, I suppose the government could legalize weed but prohibit its use anywhere except for private residences.

[JeraJaclyn]

It honestly sounds like UTPeople would like to live in a society where the govenrnment allows only "beneficial" behaviour and outlaws everything else.

 

I think the government should make premedforums illegal because it definitely is having a harmful effect on my studying for exams!