Legalisation of drugs: yes or no?

[Mr Endon]

Well, what do you know:

What evidence is there about the link between second-hand marijuana smoke and cancer?

In June 2002, a panel of experts brought together by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (an agency of the World Health Organization) determined that second-hand smoke causes cancer. And we know that marijuana and cigarette smoke contain as many as 50 of the same cancer causing substances. For these reasons, experts believe that exposure to second-hand marijuana smoke is at least as harmful as second-hand tobacco smoke.

That's certainly news to me. And from what seems to be a reliable source, too: http://www.cancer.ca/Canada-wide/How...spx?sc_lang=en

This being the case, I'd stand by Mariamosis's suggestion of restricting marijuana in a similar way as tobacco.

---
EDIT: However, in 2006 it was stated that "it is currently unclear whether long-term smoking of marijuana causes cancer". (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=f...esult&resnum=8). There are always dissonant studies. I've read some studies addressing cancer due to tobacco passive smoke and cancer due to marijuana active smoke, but very little has been written about cancer due to marijuana passive smoke cancer.

Draw your own conclusions; if only for the reasons stated by ClassicCharm, I think marijuana should have the same restrictions as tobacoo.

[Stargazer86]

8 year old Johnny pounds a mickey of Rye.
His liver explodes because it can't physically process that much alcohol.
He dies.
Whoops. Now he'll know for next time.



So does the parent get charged with negligence, or what?



I'm not talking about that kind of damage. As far as I'm aware, there's no scientific evidence of pot being carcinogenic. I'm talking about getting high of second-hand pot smoke, and it's affects on, say, I child trying to do homework.

Whether or not pot is carcinogenic (and I'm sure, as with anything you light up and inhale, it is), children should not be exposed to it. Not only because of short term affects on homework and things like that, but the addictive qualities (and I don't care what anyone says, regular use does make it habit forming or else people wouldn't be stoners in the first place) and memory loss, munchies, lethargy is not something that should be imposed on a kid.

Good point on the alcohol Classic

[hampusforev]

Wow, this thread really took off. There's too much for me to consider at the moment (I've got quite a hang-over), but I'll get to reading them all and give my answer. I make no distinction of harder and minor drugs, the fact is that some people HAVE been able to use heroin "responsibly" (IE. using it one time then saying "nah, this is not for me". I don't have the links right now, so feel free to disagree and be skeptical. But there's actually a clinic and university (an established one) in Australia which are doing some great research on how we can decrease the dangers in drugs, but still retain the "pleasure" derived form using, say, opium. This really speaks to my hedonistic philosophy, dump this Christianity imposed view that anything carnal and pleasurable is evil.

Here's an article about scientists plea about reclassification of drugs:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/5230006.stm

As you can see, alcohol is worse than LSD, ecstasy, morphine, amphetamine and cannabis.

[amarna]

Drug addiction is sort of modern slavery, I think, an anonymous, compelling and concealed subjection by industry and market.
When I look around, I can see Johnny Walker slaves, Philip Morris slaves, Novartis slaves, Nestlé slaves and so on. Weird paradox that people fight for their freedom to be enslaved and they've to be suppressed to stay free.

[Mr Endon]

Powerful stuff, amarna.

hampusforev, the problem with that logic is that of the dangerous precedent it sets. Exactly because only 'some people HAVE been able to use heroin "responsibly"' is it hazardous and irresponsible to allow anyone to have access to the addictive substance.

[PeterL]

I'm sorry, but no, I don't think you have a good idea of how you would have reacted. Neither do I, of course. But honestly, what kind of judgement do you think an 8-year-old has? You think 8-year-olds learn lessons with ODs? And they have such frail immunitary defenses. And they get addicted so much more easily than an adult. This is indefensible in too many levels.


To not expose children to unnecessarily dangerous situations is not to coddle. Let them experiment all they want when their bodies and minds are minimally developed!

The children of other people are the responsibility of those people. It is not a legitiamte function of governemnt to tell people how to live their lives, as long as they do not harm others. There are many people who think that gevernment should be the Great Nanny and take care of people; those people fail to consider how poorly governments function in tat role.

The position defended in the sentence in bold is just impossible to sustain. So kids will always get addicted, might as well give it to them anyway. People will always kill each other, might as well make it easier by handing out guns.

That is a false analogy written with the hope that you and others would take it as true. A much closer analogy would be that people have always eaten, so it is reasonable to allow them to procure food.

---

I see your point, and it is relevant for the discussion. Still, I think that's again a rather deterministic view of human nature. We had slavery for many centuries, and we eventually realised it was inadmissible. I'm just pointing out that attitudes may change. For example, there has always been and will always be murder, but we should strive to curb that.

Now the natural reaction is: drug use doesn't even compare to murder or slavery. Of course it doesn't, but I'm just trying to prove by making these analogies that
1) just because there has always been [blank] doesn't mean there will always be;
2) just because there will always be [blank] doesn't mean there should be.

Ultimately, then, all we have to take into account are the drugs themselves. My life philosophy is about life-affirming actions. A relative of mine is a judge and through him I've known just too many lives destroyed by hard drugs, it's very depressing the number of kids and adults who steal, abuse physically and verbally and even kill their parents so as to get money to support the addiction.

The comments about slavery are another false analogy, but there is still slavery, and in many cases it is legal. It would be more accurate to say that many, and perhaps most, animals use intoxicants, so it is reasonable to expect that they will continue to use intoxicants. If you wish to make a negative moral judgement about that, that is your business, but I don't think that you have any reason to expect that anyone will agree with you.

In an ideal world I'd legalise all drugs, because ideally people would consume them with moderation. In a world such as we have, it would be very irresponsible to allow all sorts of people to get a hold of that. Think about the children born addicted, what chance do they have?

So, marijuana should be legalised and destigmatised because it doesn't really represent a threat to anyone. As for hard drugs, however, like cocain and heroin, I believe that they should be illegal. (this is my provisional view of it, I can't argue for so long for a side without eventually seeing some truth in it)

It is not my responsibility to live anyone else's life for them, so I do not have the power or right to tell people what to do, as long as their actions do not harm me or someone else. For those reasons, all drugs should be legal. Each individual can decide whether to take any drug.

8 year old Johnny pounds a mickey of Rye.
His liver explodes because it can't physically process that much alcohol.
He dies.
Whoops. Now he'll know for next time.


So does the parent get charged with negligence, or what?

Some people do drink themselves to death, and that takes a lot of work. Most people barf their guts out long before they do damage. You have to remember that the minimum age limits for buying alcohol are quite recent. They weren't instituted because kids were dying; they were put in place, because parents wanted someone else to take responsibility for them.

[Mariamosis]

The matter of someone being underage is even less of an issue. The whole concept of something becoming legal at a certain age is absurd. I favor removing the minimum age restrictions for the purchase of alcohol. I have no problem with eight year olds getting drunk.

I respect your opinion, however, I find this rather absurd. Psychological, cognitive and physical abilities are developed in the first 5 years of life.

Alcohol acts as a depressant on the central nervous system, effects the gastrointestinal tract, esophagus, stomach lining, various areas of the brain, liver, heart, and pancreas amongst many other organs. The effects on a child would be devastating and greatly hinder the life expectancy and/or happiness of the child as an adult.

In Addition: However, I don't think the age restriction of 21 is exactly necessary. (in the US; I have a more european view on this.) I feel that 16 would be a reasonable age, perhaps accompanied by a parental figure. (such as when you go to the theater) I haven't thought this through completely, but I thought I would throw it out there.

[PeterL]

I respect your opinion, however, I find this rather absurd. Psychological, cognitive and physical abilities are developed in the first 5 years of life.

Alcohol acts as a depressant on the central nervous system, effects the gastrointestinal tract, esophagus, stomach lining, various areas of the brain, liver, heart, and pancreas amongst many other organs. The effects on a child would be devastating and greatly hinder the life expectancy and/or happiness of the child as an adult.

Opinions vary. I would agree that giving a two year old whiskey would not be a good idea, but a two year old would not drink the stuff, because it would hurt so much. Until the early to mid 1800's it was common for children to drink beer, especially in areas where the water supplies might be tainted. It is not unheard of for children to be weaned onto stout in Ireland; although it may not be as common as it was fifty years ago. I have cousins who were wened to stout, and they get along perfectly well.

Ideas about how much alcohol is too much have changed dramatically in the last couple hundred years. Thomas Jefferson, as one example, used to drink in an evening as much as a heavy drinker these days would drink in a week. His alcohol consumption didn't seem to diminish his intellectual abilities very much.

[Mariamosis]

I don't see how the history of legal drug using is relevant at all. Just because it was legal then it should be legal now? Just because there was racial segregation for so long does that mean it was somehow 'alright'? (sorry about the cheap resort to racism again, but I think that in this instance it's fair play).

History is always relevant.

Using history to re-examine racial segregation doesn't mean that it was right. Sometimes history must be weighed to see how things worked and/or didn't work and why. Clearly racial segregation didn't work and was wrong, but we use the perspective of history to judge what should not (hopefully) be tried again. (in this case)

Opinions vary. I would agree that giving a two year old whiskey would not be a good idea, but a two year old would not drink the stuff, because it would hurt so much. Until the early to mid 1800's it was common for children to drink beer, especially in areas where the water supplies might be tainted. It is not unheard of for children to be weaned onto stout in Ireland; although it may not be as common as it was fifty years ago. I have cousins who were wened to stout, and they get along perfectly well.

Okay, I see where you are coming from. As a child of 4 and 5 I was allowed to drink beer in very small doses and it didn't effect me. However, my parents would never have let me have free access at the time of my choosing. (in fact I grew up to hate beer... go figure)

However, hard liquor may be a different matter.

So once again we get back to the discrepancy of the parent, which doesn't always indicate very much. Therefore I still think that the age restriction should apply since I don't feel a child of 8 should be able to go to a bar and buy a beer.

[Mr Endon]

Mariamosis, if you had read a later post you'd realise I admitted as much:

I see your point, and it is relevant for the discussion.

What you should understand is that history, in this particular discussion, may be relevant, but doesn't do any work on his argument at all; in fact, I think it undermines it, hence my questioning his bringing it up.

PeterL, you said that 'It would be more accurate to say that many, and perhaps most, animals use intoxicants, so it is reasonable to expect that they will continue to use intoxicants'. So maybe I believe we could do better than giving in to impulses or whatever that is. And my analogies are rather cheap, but relevant, hence, I believe, not false; relevant because I believe that just because we do it doesn't mean we should. So maybe I believe we can better ourselves. Does that make me a moralist? Fine, I have no qualms with that.

Also, the distinction must be made between parents allowing kids to have a sip and actually selling alcohol to kids. No problems with the former, a lot of problems with the latter. You seem to have backtracked on your very interesting and unusual views after your exchange with Mariamosis, and now I can't tell for sure where you stand on this. If you still stand by selling alcohol to 8-year-olds I'm sorry to have misinterpreted the last two posts.

[Mariamosis]

My deepest apologies, Mr. Endon.

[PeterL]

So once again we get back to the discrepancy of the parent, which doesn't always indicate very much. Therefore I still think that the age restriction should apply since I don't feel a child of 8 should be able to go to a bar and buy a beer.

If you want to keep your children out of bars when they are eight, but why should you impose your ideas on others? Do you think that you have the wisdom to know how everyone should live their lives. I doubt that you do, and I know that I don't. If people want to drink boose, that's their choice, and it is not my responsibility to restrain them.

Mariamosis, if you had read a later post you'd realise I admitted as much:


What you should understand is that history, in this particular discussion, may be relevant, but doesn't do any work on his argument at all; in fact, I think it undermines it, hence my questioning his bringing it up.

PeterL, you said that 'It would be more accurate to say that many, and perhaps most, animals use intoxicants, so it is reasonable to expect that they will continue to use intoxicants'. So maybe I believe we could do better than giving in to impulses or whatever that is. And my analogies are rather cheap, but relevant, hence, I believe, not false; relevant because I believe that just because we do it doesn't mean we should. So maybe I believe we can better ourselves. Does that make me a moralist? Fine, I have no qualms with that.

No, that does not make you a moralist. That makes you someone who wantsto control the actions of others in areas where their actions have no impact on you. Some people would describe that as interfering in things that are none of your business.

Your analogies were quite irrelevant.

Also, the distinction must be made between parents allowing kids to have a sip and actually selling alcohol to kids. No problems with the former, a lot of problems with the latter. You seem to have backtracked on your very interesting and unusual views after your exchange with Mariamosis, and now I can't tell for sure where you stand on this. If you still stand by selling alcohol to 8-year-olds I'm sorry to have misinterpreted the last two posts.

Could you be more specific about how you think that I "backtracked"? I am still opposed to there being age restrictions on the sales of alcohol and drugs. If parents want to forbid their children from buying something, that's a completely different matter.

[Mariamosis]

If you want to keep your children out of bars when they are eight, but why should you impose your ideas on others? Do you think that you have the wisdom to know how everyone should live their lives. I doubt that you do, and I know that I don't. If people want to drink boose, that's their choice, and it is not my responsibility to restrain them.

Ah, but allowing a child to drink of their own accord? Children are very impressionable. If a parent drinks in front of a child (which is fine), the child begins to imitate the adult (which naturally children do), and children have free reign of alcohol... so how would we not be imposing our views on others?

[PeterL]

Ah, but allowing a child to drink of their own accord? Children are very impressionable. If a parent drinks in front of a child (which is fine), the child begins to imitate the adult (which naturally children do), and children have free reign of alcohol... so how would we not be imposing our views on others?

Yes, I just remembered how much more closely children are being controlled by their parents these days. I think that children should be allowed to act as they wish within some reasonable restrictions.
In the last few years parents have been trying to dictate the activities of their children for everry minute of every day. If that's what you think is proper, then your dictatorial comments make more sense.

[Mr Endon]

Mariamosis, nothing to apologise for!

No, that does not make you a moralist. That makes you someone who wantsto control the actions of others in areas where their actions have no impact on you. Some people would describe that as interfering in things that are none of your business.

Your analogies were quite irrelevant.

Could you be more specific about how you think that I "backtracked"? I am still opposed to there being age restrictions on the sales of alcohol and drugs. If parents want to forbid their children from buying something, that's a completely different matter.

Please consider analogies and "backtracked" comment withdrawn; let's agree to disagree with the former and I apologise for my misinterpretation regarding the latter.

How is it not my business? Do you think that just because I don't use drugs I have nothing to do with them? So I'm only allowed to have a say on that issue if a toxicodependent mugs me so that he can feed his addiction. Or when a cousin becomes addicted and makes my uncles go bankrupt. Or when my child ODs. Your idea of 'free for all so long as there's no interference with others' is fine by me, but for you apparently it's not my business if I don't use. If that's what you think, I must say you're wrong. It has everything to do with me as well.