Legalize Marijuana?

[DarkSun]

There are many things I don't want to get involved in. Banning it is completelly something different..

btw, again you chose the word "abuse".. I would not agree with abuse either..

Use can often lead to abuse....

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, actually, as far as my experience goes, the media is one-hundred percent accurate.

Even my limited first-hand experience with the media is enough to realize that this statement is far from correct.

Now I don't want to end up breaking rule 6 again, but weed definitely has some valuable medical effects in small amounts. For instance, some people may (theoretically of course) not only have frequent panic attacks, but also be incapable of taking the standard anxiety medicines without severe nausea and other side effects even worse than the initial anxiety. You can even save your lungs using a vaporizer or edibles! There is really no reason for it to be illegal. At least not Schedule I.

Here in Canada, we have one very reason to keep marijuana illegal: the US.

A few years ago, the Federal government talked about decriminalizing marijuana; posession would still be illegal, but in small quantities it would be a minor offence that you'd just get a ticket for, like speeding. The US government put out a statement saying that if Canada tried to do this, they'd clamp down on the border. Since this country is completely dependent on trade with the US, that was the end of that.

 

[gnomon]

Personally, I agree with everything you've suggested, except your third point. Just because marijuana can be used to benefit people doesn't make it entirely safe. I mean, really, should morphene use be allowed without a doctor's direct supervision?

And removing laws just so that crime is reduced isn't entirely sensible. The crime would still be enacted, the only difference is that it would be legal. Heh... Making crime legal is the same as advocating anarchy in the end.

And even though there is a significant amount of evidence which suggests that Marijuana may be used as such to "correct" the make-up of some people, there are still studies which suggest an opposite effect on some people. Perhaps that is a reason why marijuana should be harshly scrutinised if it ever is used as an alternative anti-depressant.

The point I agree with most, though, would be your first one. I agree that we need to know a whole lot more about THC than we do now before it should be considered on the same level as morphene, pain-killers, prozac, respiradol or whatever other drug it could replace.

On another note, I've heard that a Harvard study suggests that marijuana allegedly reduced the size of a tumour by half. If such things are true then we really do need more research to be inducted into the medicinal properties of marijuana. We wouldn't want to legalise it blindly, now, would we?



No, just no. :no:

There can be confusion over the issue of decriminalization vs. legalization. I still get the two confused.

Let's see if I can get them straight.

Decriminalization allows for a reduction in marijuana criminal penalties. Moving acts classed as felonies to misdemeanors, reduction in sentencing guidelines, repeal of mandatory minimums, etc. I feel that's the best route to go as a start.

Whether or not you agree with marijuana use being less dangerous than other illicit drugs or alcohol is moot.

The studies exist. Marijuana has yet to be classed as a direct cause of death. In other words, a marijuana overdose. Even an allergic reaction to cannabis causing in death does not equal a marijuana overdose.

Alcohol addiction and benzodiazepines are incredibly damaging. The detoxification from these two drugs can be incredibly dangerous and result in death more than the detox from other drugs such as heroin and meth. Not to downplay the dangers of meth and heroin considering how the latter is a painful detox. Marijuana....such measures taken to treat detox for alcohol, benzos, meth and heroin are completely unnecessary.

I know personal anecdotes are not the best but having personally gone through alcohol detox, speed withdrawal and even used LSD and crack marijuana does not even compare. Heck. Tobacco, which is the drug I still use, is far more dangerous and harder to quit.

But overall, at least we agree that as things are now in regards to prohibition and the current laws that something must change. I'm not really a big fan of seeing an increase in drug use. I would probably snap on someone if I saw them using casually in a very public atmosphere. There is also the issue of whether or not parents/guardians of children should be allowed the same possible freedom of drug use in the decriminalization/legalization debate. I don't think they should. Certain responsibilities carry with them greater expectations. That's just a fact of living.

 

[BucephalusBB]

Use can often lead to abuse....

The same applies to a pen wich can be stabbed in the eye.
As long as morals and rules apply, nothing wrong with a pen..

 

[Zephyr]

Here in Canada, we have one very reason to keep marijuana illegal: the US.

A few years ago, the Federal government talked about decriminalizing marijuana; posession would still be illegal, but in small quantities it would be a minor offence that you'd just get a ticket for, like speeding. The US government put out a statement saying that if Canada tried to do this, they'd clamp down on the border. Since this country is completely dependent on trade with the US, that was the end of that.

From what I here, people are at least pretty chill over in BC. Do you have any experience with that? I would really hate for the American-Canadian border to be clamped down on. Some nonspecific sufferers of severe panic attacks like having a reliable source for cheap quality medication.

 

[methylatedghosts]

No, I'm pretty sure that marijuana has an effect on the brain, such that your perception of the one reality is impaired... as wonderful an impairment as that may be.

But like I say... it's impossible to know this for a fact

And "impairment" to one person might be "release" to another. I don't necessarily agree that marijuana either impairs or releases. Just... alters.

 

[Zephyr]

But like I say... it's impossible to know this for a fact

And "impairment" to one person might be "release" to another. I don't necessarily agree that marijuana either impairs or releases. Just... alters.

Indeed. Is being able to more easily shrug off day-to-day stress and anxiety an impairment?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

From what I here, people are at least pretty chill over in BC. Do you have any experience with that?

Not really. All I know about the issue is what I hear on the news. I think it was more about the government's position on marijuana than anything else.

I would really hate for the American-Canadian border to be clamped down on. Some nonspecific sufferers of severe panic attacks like having a reliable source for cheap quality medication.

I don't think it's a threat any more. The current Conservative government is much less prone to decriminalize pot than the previous Liberal government was, so the US government's opposition is pretty well a moot point now.

 

[methylatedghosts]

Indeed. Is being able to more easily shrug off day-to-day stress and anxiety an impairment?

It is if you depend on marijuana to do that for you - but if you can do it without the marijuana as well, then marijuana would be more of a recreational thing, rather than a dependency.

The impairment is not in it's use, but in the dependency on it to be able to cope with day-to-day stress etc.

If I was to use marijuana it'd not be for the stress-relief, (I'm very much an unstressful person as it is) it'd be more for the fun aspect, the experience, the... *sigh* I can't actually think of the right word here... LOL.

Also, I can't imagine using it by myself, I think I'd always want someone to take it with me - much like with alcohol and drinking by yourself.

 

[Zephyr]

It is if you depend on marijuana to do that for you - but if you can do it without the marijuana as well, then marijuana would be more of a recreational thing, rather than a dependency.

The impairment is not in it's use, but in the dependency on it to be able to cope with day-to-day stress etc.

What of the people with anxiety disorders resulting in frequent panic attacks. Generally, the first line of medication for that is benzodiazepenes, which have serious addiction potential and hellish withdrawals (trust me on this). Alternatively, marijuana happens to be great for this too in small amounts (as in, you won't be walking around high all the time.) without the physical addiction or serious withdrawals (some people report sleep disturbances for a week or so, but nothing worse than a caffeine withdrawal),

If I was to use marijuana it'd not be for the stress-relief, (I'm very much an unstressful person as it is) it'd be more for the fun aspect, the experience, the... *sigh* I can't actually think of the right word here... LOL.

I believe the experts call this "getting really really high".

Also, I can't imagine using it by myself, I think I'd always want someone to take it with me - much like with alcohol and drinking by yourself.

Never had a small drink before bed or to calm an upset stomach then?

 

[methylatedghosts]

What of the people with anxiety disorders resulting in frequent panic attacks. Generally, the first line of medication for that is benzodiazepenes, which have serious addiction potential and hellish withdrawals (trust me on this). Alternatively, marijuana happens to be great for this too in small amounts (as in, you won't be walking around high all the time.) without the physical addiction or serious withdrawals (some people report sleep disturbances for a week or so, but nothing worse than a caffeine withdrawal),

Aye, but I wouldn't call that "normal, day-to-day stress" - that's a genuine mental illness issue, and this would be in context of using marijuana medicinally, not recreationally.

I believe the experts call this "getting really really high".

These "experts" are of course your friends? I have some of those as well LOL They also claim that "Getting really really high" is also alot of fun, but of course, I wouldn't claim to have experience in these matters

Never had a small drink before bed or to calm an upset stomach then?

Yikes, I've never heard of alcohol being a good idea for an upset stomach!

And no, I prefer to drink socially, not alone. It's so... pointless... to me.

 

[Zephyr]

Aye, but I wouldn't call that "normal, day-to-day stress" - that's a genuine mental illness issue, and this would be in context of using marijuana medicinally, not recreationally.

Sorry, I must be a bit scramble-brained this morning. I have been speaking of using it medically, although I'm for it being legal recreationally too.

These "experts" are of course your friends? I have some of those as well LOL They also claim that "Getting really really high" is also alot of fun, but of course, I wouldn't claim to have experience in these matters

Neither would I :shifty:

Yikes, I've never heard of alcohol being a good idea for an upset stomach!

And no, I prefer to drink socially, not alone. It's so... pointless... to me.

I was skeptical too, but my dad apparently knew something I didn't. Anyways, it's once again the difference between medical and recreational. A shot of gin might help my tummy, but it won't get me drunk. Just like how somebody could consume a small amount of marijuana for medical purposes without getting high.

As for drinking socially, yeah, I see no point in people getting drunk on their own, and I see no point in people getting high alone either. I think it should be legal, but it's still stupid.

 

[Stellify]

As for studies against the use of marijuana as a medicinal substance...

*sigh* This is one of the problems psych. researchers run into all the time... Laymen don't understand a lot of the terminology or requisites for research like this. Diction is SO important in research, more so than most people realize. One of the first things you learn when doing research is the difference between a correlation and a cause.... To most people they might be similar, but to researchers there is a very, very big difference. A correlation means nothing more than that there is a relationship between two phenomena. It does NOT dictate the type of relationship, causal or otherwise. It's like the really stupid researchers who published studies like "women who have ultrasound done often during pregnancy are much more likely to give birth to a child with defects or miscarry"...or the study that said "children with longer arms/legs are more likely to be more knowledgeable than those with shorter appendages"...well, freakin' duh. Women who get extra ultrasound during pregnancy usually do it because they are having problems with the fetus (ie: it's already deformed, or some other issue)..and kids with longer limbs? Well, older kids have longer limbs than younger ones. So of course they're going to know more. But if people only read the short versions of things and don't necessarily know the whole story....well, it can be very misleading, to say the least
Although some of the studies you cited actually do aim to prove a causal relationship, the majority of them (from what I read in the description) can be thrown out the window for similar reasons as above.
There are also other factors (related to each individual participant) to be considered (that can have more of an affect than you would think..), such as family history, family genetics, childhood history, demography, income, current lifestyle, social circles, past traumas, etc, etc ,etc...the list goes on and on and on...
I'm not saying you don't have a point. It's just....honestly, a lot of those studies aren't worth using as proof, if you actually know what they mean :sarcastic (although particularly the ones linking marijuana with schizophrenia were interesting and seemed like they might have something )

I've never read about margin of safety before but the comparison sounds correct. Given that there is still no recorded death of a marijuana overdose whereas alcohol can be lethal even within the withdrawal stage.

Sounds like an interesting class. I recommend asking your professor if he knows which drugs are known to be more dangerous during detox. As far as I know, while heroin is believed to be one of the more dangerous drugs to as far as its lethality during detox, alcohol and benzodiazepines (Valium) present a greater danger during detoxification.

Of course, this all ignores the social consequences such as operating motor vehicles under the influence of any of said substances. When one looks strictly at the physical effects upon the body marijuana definitely is one of the least dangerous drugs. At one point, prescribed medications accounted for more death and injury based solely on physical use, excepting alcohol. I believe that's correct. I just don't have the data in front of me at the moment.

Yeah...I don't believe the margin of safety included anything about social consequences. Simply the biological side of things.
Class was cancelled today for weather, but I'll definitely try to snag the professor and ask about drugs during detox if I get the chance!

.. If a little slow, perhaps

Heehee...indeed although not nearly as bad as morphine...that s*** will f*** you up..in a rather unpleasant way, imo
I was given some via IV one time....I didn't care for it at ALL.

Even my limited first-hand experience with the media is enough to realize that this statement is far from correct.


Here in Canada, we have one very reason to keep marijuana illegal: the US.

A few years ago, the Federal government talked about decriminalizing marijuana; posession would still be illegal, but in small quantities it would be a minor offence that you'd just get a ticket for, like speeding. The US government put out a statement saying that if Canada tried to do this, they'd clamp down on the border. Since this country is completely dependent on trade with the US, that was the end of that.

I had no idea the US did that. That sucks. I'm sorry...we can be right ******** sometimes

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It depends where you bungee jump, really. Some places have a higher probability of containing a faulty rope.

Any knowledgeable and wise bungee jumper will always check the rope to make sure it's good, make sure everything is secure, and jump from a place where a collision, such as with a bridge, rock, or ground will occur.
Saying some places have a higher probability of a faulty rope is like saying some areas have higher probabilities of faulty fall protection harnesses. Sure some companies probably don't make very good ones, but any harness that meets standards is safe to use. I don't know if there is a central bungee jumping safety company, but I'm sure someone looks over the ropes to make certain of the quality.

Use can often lead to abuse....

Overall, there are far more users than abusers. If you want to go by the actual numbers, there are relatively very alcoholics when compared to the number of actual users. Some drugs, such as meth and coke, have high chance of addiction, and use of them can easily lead to addiction. I say, let the drugs that actually cause problems with real addiction (as in, leaves the addict unable to function without) remain illegal. But drugs that can be used responsibly, and aren't too harmful to the system (as in, most chemical drugs) should be legal.

 

[DarkSun]

I know personal anecdotes are not the best but having personally gone through alcohol detox, speed withdrawal and even used LSD and crack marijuana does not even compare. Heck. Tobacco, which is the drug I still use, is far more dangerous and harder to quit.

I have a fairly amusing personal anecdote now that you mention it. Back in year twelve I had a fairly laid-back, easy going teacher for Study of Religion. He was a great guy, and he sure did know a lot, but he kept going on random tangents about his own experiences, as well as those of his family and friends.

He grew up in the sixties in a rural area, and he had a brother who smoked marijuana casually. To this day he continues to smoke it... and currently, he's now a member of a three-man cult whose leader believes that he is the reincarnation of the sun god, Ra. :areyoucra

There are personal anecdotes stemming from myself that I could use, but I'd rather not, because they're not nearly as amusing as that.

Heh... maybe the disposition to do that sort of thing was genetic, taught from birth onward and has various underpinning social factors. But by looking at the circumstances of the two brothers, where the person who didn't use marijuana gained a Masters in Theology and a Masters in Philosophy; while the other brother came to posses a very distorted perception of reality... I genuinely think that says something.

My point is, we really don't completely know the full effects that Marijuana can have on us. This is all the more proven when there are actually conflicting studies concerning its effects. Before we endorse it with open arms, more needs to be known about it. Maybe once we know more about it, we could legalise it, but continue to regulate it as is necessary as to avoid particular problems.

But overall, at least we agree that as things are now in regards to prohibition and the current laws that something must change. I'm not really a big fan of seeing an increase in drug use. I would probably snap on someone if I saw them using casually in a very public atmosphere. There is also the issue of whether or not parents/guardians of children should be allowed the same possible freedom of drug use in the decriminalization/legalization debate. I don't think they should. Certain responsibilities carry with them greater expectations. That's just a fact of living.

Personally, I don't think things like skunk are entirely safe for anyone to use. Given, some people won't really be affected. But some people will react to certain drugs differently, because of their make-up - and it's because these people exist that care needs to be taken.

 

[DarkSun]

The same applies to a pen wich can be stabbed in the eye.
As long as morals and rules apply, nothing wrong with a pen..

You can't exactly get addicted to stabbing yourself in the eye with a pen, though.... :sad:

 

[DarkSun]

*sigh* This is one of the problems psych. researchers run into all the time... Laymen don't understand a lot of the terminology or requisites for research like this. Diction is SO important in research, more so than most people realize. One of the first things you learn when doing research is the difference between a correlation and a cause.... To most people they might be similar, but to researchers there is a very, very big difference. A correlation means nothing more than that there is a relationship between two phenomena. It does NOT dictate the type of relationship, causal or otherwise. It's like the really stupid researchers who published studies like "women who have ultrasound done often during pregnancy are much more likely to give birth to a child with defects or miscarry"...or the study that said "children with longer arms/legs are more likely to be more knowledgeable than those with shorter appendages"...well, freakin' duh. Women who get extra ultrasound during pregnancy usually do it because they are having problems with the fetus (ie: it's already deformed, or some other issue)..and kids with longer limbs? Well, older kids have longer limbs than younger ones. So of course they're going to know more. But if people only read the short versions of things and don't necessarily know the whole story....well, it can be very misleading, to say the least

Although some of the studies you cited actually do aim to prove a causal relationship, the majority of them (from what I read in the description) can be thrown out the window for similar reasons as above.
There are also other factors (related to each individual participant) to be considered (that can have more of an affect than you would think..), such as family history, family genetics, childhood history, demography, income, current lifestyle, social circles, past traumas, etc, etc ,etc...the list goes on and on and on...

I'm not saying you don't have a point. It's just....honestly, a lot of those studies aren't worth using as proof, if you actually know what they mean :sarcastic (although particularly the ones linking marijuana with schizophrenia were interesting and seemed like they might have something )

I've never really studied psychology, but I do realise that correlation does not imply causation. I merely thought that the studies were worth being posted because a correlation existed with all of them, irregardless of whether there was a causal link with all of them.

 

[Stellify]

You can't exactly get addicted to stabbing yourself in the eye with a pen, though.... :sad:

I LOLed....:biglaugh:

I've never really studied psychology, but I do realise that correlation does not imply causation. I merely thought that the studies were worth being posted because a correlation existed with all of them, irregardless of whether there was a causal link with all of them.

Ah, gotcha. Sorry for my rant, then

 

[DarkSun]

Indeed. Is being able to more easily shrug off day-to-day stress and anxiety an impairment?

No, not "shrug off"... the day-to-day stress will still be there when the affects of the drug subside. The only way to truly eliminate these problems is to face them....

 

[gnomon]

I have a fairly amusing personal anecdote now that you mention it. Back in year twelve I had a fairly laid-back, easy going teacher for Study of Religion. He was a great guy, and he sure did know a lot, but he kept going on random tangents about his own experiences, as well as those of his family and friends.

He grew up in the sixties in a rural area, and he had a brother who smoked marijuana casually. To this day he continues to smoke it... and currently, he's now a member of a three-man cult whose leader believes that he is the reincarnation of the sun god, Ra. :areyoucra

There are personal anecdotes stemming from myself that I could use, but I'd rather not, because they're not nearly as amusing as that.

Heh... maybe the disposition to do that sort of thing was genetic, taught from birth onward and has various underpinning social factors. But by looking at the circumstances of the two brothers, where the person who didn't use marijuana gained a Masters in Theology and a Masters in Philosophy; while the other brother came to posses a very distorted perception of reality... I genuinely think that says something.

My point is, we really don't completely know the full effects that Marijuana can have on us. This is all the more proven when there are actually conflicting studies concerning its effects. Before we endorse it with open arms, more needs to be known about it. Maybe once we know more about it, we could legalise it, but continue to regulate it as is necessary as to avoid particular problems.



Personally, I don't think things like skunk are entirely safe for anyone to use. Given, some people won't really be affected. But some people will react to certain drugs differently, because of their make-up - and it's because these people exist that care needs to be taken.

Personal anecdotes are an iffy form of argumentation.

But I would place my experience in my involvement with Ridgeview mental hospital and close observations of people detoxing from alcohol abuse compared to the marijuana users denied admittance into the hospital because the nature of the drug was not considered to reach the level of addiction that they treated within one of the highest ranked hospitals within the United States over the observation comparable to a Sunday school class.

edit: Also, given the millions of known users of marijuana within the U.S. alone and the relative low admittance factor of marijuana users for psychologically induced drug disorders compared to those few individuals admitted for known psychological disorders who reverted to the use of marijuana as a medical device. In other words, there is a difference between a single anecdote and that of observation of hundreds of people (my own) and that of millions (the medical community at large) of the use of marijuana and its relative dangers. I could easily assert Carl Sagan as a marijuana user but the point is it's irrelevant.

The long term studies of psychologically induced disorders form the use of marijuana have yet to adequately factor out pre-existing mental conditions. Statistically speaking, if marijuana use was a damaging psychologically there would be greater incidences of hospital admittance for this condition. Yet, the greatest admittance for hospital admittance for marijuana use remains court ordered use based on no scientific basis. By no scientific basis I mean that the law has not relied upon scientific evidence.

double edit: Thank you for at least engaging in a debate. It's good to see this issue being debated.