Marijuana

Started by 75319 pages

Originally posted by Daemon Seed
Alcohol sadly is ingrained in culture it cannot be banned. Firstly with pot as its usually smoked with tobacco, cancer goes up. This is outside all the other things. I think you've been reading pro pot statistics.
drug use is ingrained in culture. from what I've read and first hand knowledge, any increase in cancer statistics coming from pot legalization would be minor because it is not smoked 20 or 40 times a day like common cigarretes, even the most commited potheads dont go through a pack of joints a day and most casual users would go through 3 joints a week.

furthermore, a rise in cancer incidence among users cannot justify curtailing individual freedom of action.

Pot doesn't need to be smoked, thats a choice.

Originally posted by 753
drug use is ingrained in culture. from what I've read and first hand knowledge, any increase in cancer statistics coming from pot legalization would be minor because it is not smoked 20 or 40 times a day like common cigarretes, even the most commited potheads dont go through a pack of joints a day and most casual users would go through 3 joints a week.

furthermore, a rise in cancer incidence among users cannot justify curtailing individual freedom of action.

However we're down to the same old argument, you from your sig are a pot smoker and in favour. I have seen people I love, one in particular damaged by pot and am as a result against it.

U.S. should legalize drugs, says former Mexican president Fox

Jim Forsyth

(Reuters) - Former Mexican President Vicente Fox said this week that the only way to end the drug violence plaguing his country is for the United States to legalize drugs.

"As a country, we are going through problems due to the fact that the United States consumes too many drugs," Fox, who served as Mexico's president from 2000-2006, told reporters Monday night before a speech at the Turkish-American Chamber of Commerce in San Antonio.

"I would recommend to legalize, de-penalize all drugs," Fox added.

He said the drug violence threatens to rip his country apart. It has claimed more than 37,000 lives in Mexico since 2006, when President Felipe Calderon took office and sent the army to combat cartels fighting for smuggling routes to the United States.

President Barack Obama has made it a priority to work with Calderon to curb smuggling over the nearly 2,000-mile border, a lucrative transit point for criminal networks hauling drugs and illegal immigrants north to the United States and guns and billions in cash profits south to Mexico.

Fox said the U.S. drug market generates billions of dollars that are laundered in the United States and flow into Mexico, money that is used to bribe Mexican police officers and government officials and to buy weapons that are brought into Mexico.

"The question is not what is going on in Mexico, but what is going on in the United States," Fox said.

Fox accused U.S. politicians of using his country's bloody drug war as a talking point, while they are unwilling to take the tough steps needed to end it.

"I have never heard President Obama say, 'No more drugs for our kids,'" Fox said. "The U.S. does not want to stop it."

Fox said so many of the Mexican victims are young people between 15 and 24 years old that the country faces a "lost generation" due to the drug war. And, he said, Mexico is paying not only in lives but in investment and in lost income from tourism.

"We don't deserve what we're going through right now," Fox said.

The former president said drug use in the United States is so huge no law can stop it, so American politicians need to take the bold step of legalizing drugs.

He lamented last November's defeat of a ballot measure in California that would have legalized possession of small amounts of marijuana for recreational purposes.

Fox cited the example of Portugal, which decriminalized the possession of drugs for personal use in 2001. He cited a Cato Institute report that drug use is down 25 percent in that country.

"This can be done, and this would separate the issues of crime and violence from the issue of health, which are two separate issues," he said.

He said some of the money being used in the war on drugs could then be used to convince Americans not to use drugs, and on more extensive drug treatment and intervention programs.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/03/us-mexico-fox-drugs-idUSTRE74251220110503?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews

Drug Decriminalization in Portugal:
Lessons for Creating Fair and Successful Drug Policies

Glenn Greenwald

On July 1, 2001, a nationwide law in Portugal took effect that decriminalized all drugs, including cocaine and heroin. Under the new legal framework, all drugs were "decriminalized," not "legalized." Thus, drug possession for personal use and drug usage itself are still legally prohibited, but violations of those prohibitions are deemed to be exclusively administrative violations and are removed completely from the criminal realm. Drug trafficking continues to be prosecuted as a criminal offense.

While other states in the European Union have developed various forms of de facto decriminalization — whereby substances perceived to be less serious (such as cannabis) rarely lead to criminal prosecution — Portugal remains the only EU member state with a law explicitly declaring drugs to be "decriminalized." Because more than seven years have now elapsed since enactment of Portugal's decriminalization system, there are ample data enabling its effects to be assessed.

Notably, decriminalization has become increasingly popular in Portugal since 2001. Except for some far-right politicians, very few domestic political factions are agitating for a repeal of the 2001 law. And while there is a widespread perception that bureaucratic changes need to be made to Portugal's decriminalization framework to make it more efficient and effective, there is no real debate about whether drugs should once again be criminalized. More significantly, none of the nightmare scenarios touted by preenactment decriminalization opponents — from rampant increases in drug usage among the young to the transformation of Lisbon into a haven for "drug tourists" — has occurred.

The political consensus in favor of decriminalization is unsurprising in light of the relevant empirical data. Those data indicate that decriminalization has had no adverse effect on drug usage rates in Portugal, which, in numerous categories, are now among the lowest in the EU, particularly when compared with states with stringent criminalization regimes. Although postdecriminalization usage rates have remained roughly the same or even decreased slightly when compared with other EU states, drug-related pathologies — such as sexually transmitted diseases and deaths due to drug usage — have decreased dramatically. Drug policy experts attribute those positive trends to the enhanced ability of the Portuguese government to offer treatment programs to its citizens — enhancements made possible, for numerous reasons, by decriminalization.

This report will begin with an examination of the Portuguese decriminalization framework as set forth in law and in terms of how it functions in practice. Also examined is the political climate in Portugal both pre- and postdecriminalization with regard to drug policy, and the impetus that led that nation to adopt decriminalization.

The report then assesses Portuguese drug policy in the context of the EU's approach to drugs. The varying legal frameworks, as well as the overall trend toward liberalization, are examined to enable a meaningful comparative assessment between Portuguese data and data from other EU states.

The report also sets forth the data concerning drug-related trends in Portugal both pre- and postdecriminalization. The effects of decriminalization in Portugal are examined both in absolute terms and in comparisons with other states that continue to criminalize drugs, particularly within the EU.

The data show that, judged by virtually every metric, the Portuguese decriminalization framework has been a resounding success. Within this success lie self-evident lessons that should guide drug policy debates around the world.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10080

The full report by the CATO institute is available through this link [you know, if you want to complain about the methodology, read the methodology first]

*****

I know, sorry guys, these are facts. Clearly not as important as uninformed opinions from people who don't understand the concepts they are trying to talk about [like simple hypothesis testing, sic!]. In the future I will try to keep an eye out for stuff that has no factual basis whatsoever, such that I can participate in this debate more.

Originally posted by Daemon Seed
However we're down to the same old argument, you from your sig are a pot smoker and in favour. I have seen people I love, one in particular damaged by pot and am as a result against it.
I dont mean to pry but damaged how?

problem with your logic is that you want a policy curtailing individual liberty to be enforced based on people causing damage to themselves and as result hurting their loved ones, but this is an extremely problematic line of reasoning, unhealthy eating habits are far more harmfull to those practice them and their loved ones than pot. should we enforce healthy eating habits? people should be informed of the consequences of unehalthy habits and kids must be controlled byt heir parents to a certain degree, but ultimately collectivities should not choose how to live for an individual.the fact that people suffer when their lvoed ones **** up isn't justification enough to intefere with their autonomy.

Originally posted by 753
I dont mean to pry but damaged how?

problem with your logic is that you want a policy curtailing individual liberty to be enforced based on people causing damage to themselves and as result hurting their loved ones, but this is an extremely problematic line of reasoning, unhealthy eating habits are far more harmfull to those practice them and their loved ones than pot. should we enforce healthy eating habits? people should be informed of the consequences of unehalthy habits and kids must be controlled byt heir parents to a certain degree, but ultimately collectivities should not choose how to live for an individual.the fact that people suffer when their lvoed ones **** up isn't justification enough to intefere with their autonomy.

Paranoia, mild schitzophrenia, mood swings, it's hard to be in a relationship with someone you love as you see the pot affect them more and more.

Originally posted by inimalist

*****

I know, sorry guys, these are facts. Clearly not as important as uninformed opinions from people who don't understand the concepts they are trying to talk about [b][like simple hypothesis testing, sic!]. In the future I will try to keep an eye out for stuff that has no factual basis whatsoever, such that I can participate in this debate more. [/B]

[url]http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/mentalhealthinfo/problems/alcoholanddrugs/cannabis.aspx

Yeah and these are another set of facts....

Originally posted by Daemon Seed
Paranoia, mild schitzophrenia, mood swings, it's hard to be in a relationship with someone you love as you see the pot affect them more and more.

what proof do you have that these issues didn't cause self-medicating behaviour, as most have roots in childhood development long before any exposure to marijuana.

further, the is absolutely no evidence of mood swings being a symptom of marijuana. Paranoia is pushing it too, and is much more of a symptom of being stoned rather than a long term consequence.

schizo-type symptoms are, without a doubt, only increased if there is a latent schizo-type issue in the user. Pot does not create that problem, merely presents a situation where such issues can become more pronounced, however, the research that looks at this still cannot account for self-medication

please show your work.

or, you know, any reason why self-medication isn't a confound. In fact, the scientific community would value this information if you could produce it, pretty please

Originally posted by inimalist

*****

I know, sorry guys, these are facts. Clearly not as important as uninformed opinions from people who don't understand the concepts they are trying to talk about [b][like simple hypothesis testing, sic!]. In the future I will try to keep an eye out for stuff that has no factual basis whatsoever, such that I can participate in this debate more. [/B]

[url]http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/mentalhealthinfo/problems/alcoholanddrugs/cannabis.aspx

Yeah and these are another set of facts....

weird its not posting what i'm writing or quoting.

Originally posted by Daemon Seed
url]http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/mentalhealthinfo/problems/alcoholanddrugs/cannabis.aspx[/url]

the only studies that are even relevant (though not even properly cited) are these:

Depression
A study following 1600 Australian school-children, aged 14 to 15 for seven years, found that while children who use cannabis regularly have a significantly higher risk of depression, the opposite was not the case - children who already suffered from depression were not more likely than anyone else to use cannabis. However, adolescents who used cannabis daily were five times more likely to develop depression and anxiety in later life.

Schizophrenia
Three major studies followed large numbers of people over several years, and showed that those people who use cannabis have a higher than average risk of developing schizophrenia. If you start smoking it before the age of 15, you are 4 times more likely to develop a psychotic disorder by the time you are 26. They found no evidence of self-medication. It seemed that, the more cannabis someone used, the more likely they were to develop symptoms.

which begin at 14, far too late in the developmental cycle to rule out self-medication

do you know which studies they are referring to here? as I would like to actually read the methodology before commenting on them

also, one study with an n of 1600? no.... no, not going to try and talk stats... EDIT: the take home point: the larger the number of people in your study, the easier it is to find differences. With no power analysis, we can't know what a reasonable number would be, but with 1600 participants, it is almost certain that there is a risk of Type 1 error..... though, I'm sure that is a meaningful statement for you

Originally posted by inimalist
the only studies that are even relevant (though not even properly cited) are these:

which begin at 14, far too late in the developmental cycle to rule out self-medication

do you know which studies they are referring to here? as I would like to actually read the methodology before commenting on them

also, one study with an n of 1600? no.... no, not going to try and talk stats...

There was a large one recently in the U.K. but I can't find it. Because studies conflict as does expert opinion. I'll go with what i've seen.

Originally posted by Daemon Seed
There was a large one recently in the U.K. but I can't find it. Because studies conflict as does expert opinion. I'll go with what i've seen.

right, because there are no such thing as perceptual or cognitive biases

Originally posted by inimalist
right, because there are no such thing as perceptual or cognitive biases

Of course there is, there is also that observation in itself affects what's being observed. Although without observation we have no ability to study anything. ;-)

are you going to tell me which studies those facts about depression and schizophrenia came from?

Originally posted by inimalist
are you going to tell me which studies those facts about depression and schizophrenia came from?

When I find it again, yes.

I'll be waiting

Originally posted by inimalist
I'll be waiting

O.K.

Originally posted by Daemon Seed
Firstly with pot as its usually smoked with tobacco,

Only if you're European...

I like the logic though:

-pot is harmless and illegal
-tobacco is harmful and legal
-pot should remain illegal because it is mixed with a more harmful legal substance