Legalisation of drugs: yes or no?

[kasie]

Thanks, Mr E - I thought it must be something like turning a blind eye if the purchase was 'for personal use'.

[Mr Endon]

Don't mention it, kasie; from what I understand, it is so in Greece at least, and in Portugal it's actually quite legal.

In response to Classic Charm: to legalise is not to hand out (I must admit I committed the same mistake in a post replying to PeterL). Of course there must always be restrictions to that sort of drugs, that's what prescriptions are for. To legalise drugs is not to put them up for sale at your local market, but simply not to prosecute those who use them.

[Mariamosis]

Marijuana, however, may cause cancer and be highly addictive, but it's no worse than tobacco, and as other posters have mentioned, I've never heard of a broken home because of cannabis use. For these reasons it should be legal.

It has never been proven that marijuana causes cancer. Yes, smoke inhalation is bad for your lungs. There are numerous other ways to consume marijuana without the necessities of smoke and thereby eliminating toxins.

An acquaintance of mine had received news from his doctor that he had serious lung cancer and was not expected to live more than a few months. He immediately stopped treatment with the doctors and began a strict regime of smoking vaporized cannabis. He went back to the doctor two years later and his cancer had not spread. That was 6 or 7 years ago and it has still not spread. (I know, everyone has a "miracle story", and maybe that was an isolated case, but we can't really say for sure)

Secondly marijuana is NOT addicting. I was a user for over a year (morning, noon, and night; everyday) when I decided that I was tired of spending my money, I stopped. There were no withdrawals, no pain, and I wasn't moody. I just woke up and didn't smoke.

In fact during the year I was using, I found I could substitute marijuana for tobacco and not have cigarette withdrawals. Therefore I quit cigarettes thanks to marijuana. (and it wasn't just me, I don't have enough fingers to count how many friends have quit tobacco the same way and after years have not started again) I don't know anyone who has quit tobacco "cold turkey", with the patch, or the gum who have not had some sort of withdrawals.

[Big Al]

Unfortunately, John Stuart Mill couldn't understand the difference between liberty and licence.

I will bet my life's savings that he understood it much better than you do.

[Mr Endon]

It has never been proven that marijuana causes cancer.

I've spoken with lawyers and judges about this matter and they were of the opinion that it does. But they're no medics, so let's assume they don't know what they're talking about.

While it's true that it may not cause lung cancer like as much as tobacco does (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...501729_pf.html), it is still carcinogenic (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4350642.stm) and two months ago a study suggested that it may also cause testicular cancer (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7869709.stm).

Well, cancer or no cancer, let's agree on this much:

Chronic daily cannabis use has been shown to have long term harmful health effects

(This is in the abstract of a study in SpringerLink (http://www.springerlink.de/home/main.mpx), which, ask anyone, is an impartial and highly reliable source.)

Secondly marijuana is NOT addicting. I was a user for over a year (morning, noon, and night; everyday) when I decided that I was tired of spending my money, I stopped. There were no withdrawals, no pain, and I wasn't moody. I just woke up and didn't smoke.

The lawyers and judges I spoke with also here say it IS addicting. But don't take my word for it:

A subset of marijuana smokers develop a cannabis use disorder and seek treatment for their marijuana use on their own initiative. A less well-known consequence of daily, repeated marijuana use is a withdrawal syndrome, characterized by a time-dependent constellation of symptoms: irritability, anxiety, marijuana craving, decreased quality and quantity of sleep, and decreased food intake.

Conclusion Co-morbid psychiatric disorders are common among heavy cannabis users seeking treatment. Some psychiatric disorders occur more frequently in this group compared with users of other substances.

Neuropsychological deficits and differences in brain functioning are most consistently observed only among frequent, heavy users, who are those most likely addicted to cannabis. The dire impact of drug addiction on a person’s life and everyday functioning suggests that the large number of individuals addicted to cannabis experience substantial negative effects from its use.

(More abstracts from SpringerLink.)

I think it's terrific that you weren't addicted. However, (I don't want to come across feisty, but) the truth is that that proves absolutely nothing. That fallacy is known as "hasty generalisation"; it's like saying "well, that guy was shot in the head and didn't die, ergo getting shot in the head doesn't kill you".

[Mariamosis]

I think it's terrific that you weren't addicted. However, (I don't want to come across feisty, but) the truth is that that proves absolutely nothing. That fallacy is known as "hasty generalisation"; it's like saying "well, that guy was shot in the head and didn't die, ergo getting shot in the head doesn't kill you".

Thanks for the links. I will view them later today.

I am not going to argue much on the point of cancer, since I only have one source (an quite possibly an unreliable one) to back up my comment.

I can't speak for the tests that were done, but personal experience is hard to overcome. (although personal testimony from someone you met on the internet is hardly convincing, I am sure )

I am not a scientist, and I am therefore not going to say 100% that marijuana is not addicting. However, I have met hundreds of people (literally)that I have spoken with regarding their personal experiences with marijuana, and have never heard of one person claim withdrawal symptoms.

I will say that it seems to inhibit your mental processes a bit even between use, however, after a few months of non-using, people always seem to recouperate. (even users of 20 years)

I can't speak for your lawyers and judges either, and I must say I am a little skeptical about their opinion, since I have worked for lawyers and have seen their "so-called" research tecniques. I am not trying to slander your lawyers, however, we must remember that they are only human. You have to wonder where they get their information and you also have to wonder where these medics and scientists get their funding.

[PeterL]

I will bet my life's savings that he understood it much better than you do.

And I'd double up on that bet, if I could.

[Mr Endon]

I can't speak for the tests that were done, but personal experience is hard to overcome. (although personal testimony from someone you met on the internet is hardly convincing, I am sure )

I'm sure it is hard to overcome, and it's quite a reliable source of information, straight from the well, if you will. I'm only alerting to the fact that only studies using a reasonable sample can give us an accurate perspective on things like these.

I am not a scientist, and I am therefore not going to say 100% that marijuana is not addicting. However, I have met hundreds of people (literally)that I have spoken with regarding their personal experiences with marijuana, and have never heard of one person claim withdrawal symptoms.

I believe you. I must say that I had no idea that cannabis was addicting (I've never done drugs, so I'm very naïve in that respect). It was only after talking with these people working in law that I was introduced to the idea. I'm starting to accept it as valid after having skimmed through a good deal of studies on the matter.

And neither did I say it's 100% addicting; you may notice my careful phrasing: "may cause cancer and be highly addicting". The thing is, even though some people are happily immune to its grip, we should always be careful about generalising that idea and thus incurring in the aforementioned fallacy.

I will say that it seems to inhibit your mental processes a bit even between use, however, after a few months of non-using people always seem to recouperate. (even users of 20 years)

Yes, I've heard of reports which described recuperations to that effect.

I can't speak for your lawyers and judges either, and I must say I am a little skeptical about their opinion, since I have worked for lawyers and have seen their "so-called" research tecniques. I am not trying to slander your lawyers, however, we must remember that they are only human. You have to wonder where they get their information and you also have to wonder where these medics and scientists get their funding.

Well one is a relative and the other is a friend, so I don't have much reason to suspect of them! (by the way, in my opinion you can count on the judges to be very sensible, it's the lawyers you must be careful with )

And sure, there's a lot of shady business going on, and as for bias, it's very hard to escape it: if you write "cannabis cancer" on google, most of the websites are blatantly either pro-legalisation or anti-legalisation, and there's no prize for guessing what kind of conclusions the "studies" they quote come to. That's why I try to stick to quality websites like JSTOR, SpringerLink, Project MUSE, Wiley, etc. No 'unbiased studies' guaranteed, I guess, but then again, is there such thing?

[Mariamosis]

I'm not getting into the rest of this. I will never support legalization of anything that is inherently harmful to anyone and to society. The alcohol analogy doesn't hold. Alcohol has been part and integral to culture for over ten thousand years. It cannot be stripped out of the culture.

Your argument against drugs based on the idea that alcohol has been a part of culture for over ten thousand years is a bit compromising to your position.

Marijuana has been grown for fiber and used as a source of medicine for several thousand years.

Cannabis has been used therapeutically from the earliest records, nearly 5,000 years ago, to the present day and its products have been widely noted for their effects, both physiological and psychological, throughout the world.

Therefore marijuana has "been part and integral to culture" for over 5000 years. "It cannot be stripped out of the culture", but it has, just as alcohol has been in the past.

Mr. Endon, always keeping me on my toes!
I will get back to this conversation in an hour or so!

[sprinks]

I've never heard of a broken home because of cannabis use. For these reasons it should be legal.

I'm not really going to discuss this much more because it hurts, but one guy very very close to me - well it caused a number of problems in his family. It's also physically affected him. He said it was a "social thing" that helped him relax; but it's even screwed with other friend's minds as well. It affects the way they think - not always in a positive way. It has different effects on people, you can't legalize it on the basis that "it didn't affect me badly so it won't affect anyone badly", and you can't make it illegal because "it affected them badly so it will affect everyone badly." It's too much of an individual thing, yet at the same time, it's a dangerous thing. Some people might take something every day for 50 years and be fine, someone might try it ONCE and die. Therefore, the people doing it can keep on doing it, obviously they know what they're doing and they aren't likely to stop if they feel they don't have to - regardless of it's illegal or not, however that fear that results with drugs being illegal might prevent some people from taking things. I'll admit that while I've been curious every now and again, I've never taken any illegal drugs, and never will. Why? Because they're illegal. If they weren't, I would have, I bet (then again books like Go Ask Alice and Anna's Story do put me off even being curious). And who knows what might happen to me, and who knows where it will lead. Some people do indeed use the logic that "well this is illegal and I'm okay, lets try something heavier!"

I understand some people need illegal drugs for medical use. I don't think that that should allow everyone to use them.

People choose to do drugs, knowing that they are illegal, and that's their decision. I suppose a counter argument to what I previously said is that taking away the "illegal" status would prevent some people from taking drugs because the "danger" isn't there, it's not as "rebellious" or "exciting". However, the freedom that would come from drugs not being illegal would certainly result in an increase, would it not? People wouldn't get in trouble for it, and so it would become more widespread, become more advertised in a way, because people would be able to use freely without the fear of being fined or jailed etc. Therefore, a higher demand, and higher risk for more people, as it would become easier to obtain.

[Mr Endon]

Oh, Mariamosis, not trying to put you in check or anything I think we actually agree in regard to the whole picture, it's the details that always give food for discussion.

sprinks, I agree with most of what you said. Your post summarises why this is such a hot topic. I'll just reply to two bits:

It has different effects on people, you can't legalize it on the basis that "it didn't affect me badly so it won't affect anyone badly", and you can't make it illegal because "it affected them badly so it will affect everyone badly." It's too much of an individual thing, yet at the same time, it's a dangerous thing.

I'm very aware of the intricacy of the matter, yet one stance must be adopted. The government doesn't make things illegal because they think that "everyone will be affected badly", but because some (or most, or a few) will, and worse than that, because those that will be affected will in turn affect others. The solution in Portugal seems to be the best one: traffic is illegal, consumption is legal (but not entirely without restrictions).

I suppose a counter argument to what I previously said is that taking away the "illegal" status would prevent some people from taking drugs because the "danger" isn't there, it's not as "rebellious" or "exciting". However, the freedom that would come from drugs not being illegal would certainly result in an increase, would it not? People wouldn't get in trouble for it, and so it would become more widespread, become more advertised in a way, because people would be able to use freely without the fear of being fined or jailed etc. Therefore, a higher demand, and higher risk for more people, as it would become easier to obtain.

That's what one would think. However, practical instances show that such speculations are ultimately foundationless. I suggest you to read the excellent article that Taliesin posted here, the Portuguese case study, where all drug use has been legalised for 8 years now and there are not yet any aggravations of any kind to speak of, in fact apparently only improvements: http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...l?iid=tsmodule


---
EDIT: On the top of this page: "Beat Your Addiction, free advice on the best treatment, discounts available". You gotta love the Google ad-sense. The wonders of technology!

[Emil Miller]

I will bet my life's savings that he understood it much better than you do.

You would probbaly lose them. Like all of his acolytes, Mill talks a lot about rights but seldom mentions responsibilty.

[Mariamosis]

It would be nice, if there would be regulation as to the purity of the substances. As far as dosage goes, people would decide for themselves. Fatalities happen now, but most of the fatalities now are from adulterated drugs. There are people who will killed themselves with drugs regardless of the regulations.

This is a very good point. Much of the problem with milder drugs is too much trust on the part of the consumer and/or untrustworthy providers.

Not to mention the risk of reusing hypodermic needles. (eek!)

[TheFifthElement]

You know, no one is going to agree on this. But interesting debate nonetheless.

However, this curious concept keeps appearing at random stages throughout the thread. It appears in many different forms but basically seems to amount to this:

it is irresponsible to permit people to take responsibility for themselves

I've done some research and it appears to be an increasingly commonly encountered phenomenon known as the responsibility vacuum, a doughnut shaped device found in kitchen cupboards. The responsibility vacuum operates at night when it sneaks into bedrooms and sucks all the responsibility from the room, leaving the occupant slightly euphoric and totally incapable of making decisions for themselves.

Weird, or have I been watching too much Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy?

[PeterL]

You know, no one is going to agree on this. But interesting debate nonetheless.

However, this curious concept keeps appearing at random stages throughout the thread. It appears in many different forms but basically seems to amount to this:

it is irresponsible to permit people to take responsibility for themselves

I noticed that problem also. I don't think that you idea of a vacuum was involved. I think that some people have been brainwashed into thinking that the so-called authorities actually know how they should live their lives, and they do not know how to live their own lives.