Decriminalization of marijuana

Just a couple things I wanna ask y'all:

1. Why is it that marijuana is illegal, despite its medicinal advantages, but prescription medication that you commonly see on television are ay'okay but some of them take ages to describe their side effects and may even wind up on the list of dangerous medications not to take due to fatal incidents involving them?

2. Why is it that, despite people talking about all the negative aspects of it, the only commercials of it are about peer pressure, rather than the plant itself?

 

This seems to have stimulated some debate, which is always good; I'll try to address some of the points raised so far.

Firstly, Government interfering. Some people might argue that the Government has no right to interfer with what chemicals you put in your body, and to some extent, this is true. The individual has rights. But so too does society as a whole; when the rights of an individual affect the rights of another individual; there is the potential for conflict. While weed doesn't exactly produce hugely anti-social individuals, the real problem lies in its upredictable effects on the mental state. The cliche of the peaceful and stoned user is certainly true (I would even venture to say "mostly true") but it is not unknown for cannabis users to display psychotic tendancies and other upredictable reactions.

In a similar way, what about healthcare? Nobody would argue that there are *no* health risks to cannabis use at all, and so you'd eventually get a pressure of the healthcare system caused by cannabis related health-problems. Therefore, it is the Government's buisiness to have some control over the chemicals we ingest, because these can have a direct effect on our own society as a whole.

Secondly, on the health risks themselves. I'm afraid I must confess my ignorance as to the exact position of the latest research. The impression I get, however, is that it is *very* unclear. We can all agree that it has some sort of impact on the body (and in sufficiently excessive quantities, it can have a harmful effect). It's for this uncertainty why I continue to oppose attemts to legalise cannabis. I am fully supportive, however, of a set of extensive and meticulous scientific studies into cannabis use so that the short term and long term effects are properly used. From a look at the scientific literature available at the moment, the evidence is patchy, biased, limited and statistically insignificant (This goes equally for pro- and contra- studies for cannabis, I hasten to add). We simply don't know enough on either side to make an informed descision.

Finally, the point about medical cannabis use. There are large differences between theraputic and recreational uses of any drug. First, purity and dose. Medicines tend to be of high quality and also, very precisely measured. You can assure that for recreational cannabis. Secondly, availability. When cannabis is perscribed to sufferers of MS and other chronic pain conditions it's a strict and controlled dose. Without buying the drug illegally, they have a certain amount which releaves their symptoms and nothing more. With a recreational drug, the only limit is the amount you can purchase (unless that is somehow controlled, of course.) Finally, on benefits versus harms. A sufferer of MS goes through intense pain. So much so that they cannot function in normal day-to-day roles. Therefore, the benefits of giving someone their life back outweigh the harms of the drug itself-the theraputic effects are greater than the toxic effects. To use an analogy, chemotherapy is given in treatment of cancer. While in some cases, chemotherapy might actually *cause* the death of a patient, the benefit of allowing them to extend their lives and fight cancer compensate for the extremely toxic side effects. However, for a fit, healthy person to demand chemotherapy would be ludicrous, no?

 

The problem with this argument is that tobacco and alcohol remain legal, despite numerous health peoples associated with them.

 

only reason its not legalized it cause government can't tax it.

take Advil for example, u take 20 Advil and that will be ur last headache...., but not everybody can make Advil outa sunlight and water, only the corporations can, thus a government can tax said corporation and make the money. but they can't tax marijuana because any hick with light and water can grow marijuana, thus the government can't tax it.

and some ppl actually think the government is looking out for their well being.... /sigh

EDIT: for spelling =)

 

Oh certainly. It's the single biggest error in our whole health system. There are countless statistics out there that suggest that if smoking were to become illegal, the healthcare system would save billions etc. However, while the Government doesn't choose to make alcohol and tobacco illegal (for a number of reasons, some financial, some cultural), they certainly do control it to some extent. Age laws, legal limits &ct. I agree with you, there does appear to be a double standard of "You can ruin your life with *these* chemicals, but not this one." But the main thrust of my point was that the Goverment has (and should have) a right to regulate what indivduals privately do in order to protect other individuals, and indeed, society as a whole.

On the subject of taxation/profit. Where there's a will, there's a tax (as inheritance tax in the UK proves...). While it's certainly *a lot* easier to manufacture cannabis (it's a plant. Sunshine, water, soil and heat) than something like cocaine or heroin, to the point that anyone can do it practically in their back garden, I still think the Government could easily tax a legal form of weed. To use a parallel, alcohol. It is the easiest drink in the world to make. You want something that'll get you legless? Just put any sugary solution (say, fruit juice) and yeast together in a large container, add a little heat and some time (not as long as it takes to grow a whole plant) and there you have it. If you're hankering for something stronger, just get a 'stil (Or make one, I learned how to off my biology teacher) and you've got a clear and delicious spirit that can make you blind, if you overindulge. Even so, the Government can tax this. You aren't allowed to distill without a license. Every time you buy alcohol, you pay tax on it. And so on.

So even though cannabis *could* be home grown, you can bet that there'd be rules, regulations, and above all, fees to pay. The Government looks after itself, financially. It also looks after its citizens, every now and then.

 

You say that is entirely acceptable for the government to interfere with an individual's life if he interferes with society's rights. And, perhaps this is just a difference between Americans and the British, but I have to disagree. In the United States, an individual has rights. "Society" does not. Groups of people may be able to form a corporation, which is treated similarly. The question, then, is what is the government's job? In my opinion, it is to protect the individual's rights. But what, exactly, does that entail? Certainly, in a society where the government is in the position of paying for health care it has a vested interest in the health of its citizens. Only, that always makes me think of 1984. If the government has a vested interest in the health of the nation, what's to stop it from mandating a "healthy" lifestyle? From instigating mandatory exercise? Anyone else remember the scene in 1984 where they do their morning exercises? That is why I don't want the government waist-deep in the healthcare system: it has the power of coercion. It can force you to do things because it has the guns to back itself up. But this seems to have devolved into a critique of government provided healthcare, which is slightly off-topic. Although I suppose the issues are related.

Regarding cannabis specifically, many people tend to forget that it was, at one time, legal to purchase and use. It wan't prohibited until sometime around the Great Depression. The story of its banning, though, is very revealing. Technically speaking, it was a tax, but it effectively banned it because nobody could pay the tax. Within Congress, maybe a handful actually knew what it was. And their reasoning for banning it? Because it made white women have sex with black people and mexicans. That was their argument. It wasn't banned for "health reasons" or anything like that. It was banned on a purely moral basis. In America, at least. Not too sure about in the UK.

Also, even though some states have passed laws decriminalizing possession, or even okaying medicinal use, it is still a Schedule I drug, which by definition has no medical value. State licensed dispensaries are raided by federal agents and "I have a prescription" is not a valid defense in a federal trial because the federal government does not recognize the right of the states to overrule its decision. I think it was Raich v Gonzales where the supreme Court decided that Congress had the power to regulate cannabis use even when technically it never left the state using the same reasoning it did in another case during the Depression about wheat, Wickard v Filburn I think. So even if local governments "decriminalize" cannabis possession, the federal government can and will prosecute anyone it can. Again, that really only applies to the US.

 

I know I'm going horribly off topic, but this part of this post kinda hit me the wrong way...Unless I am misreading it, I have to disagree with your statement that the American government does not interfere with civilians' lives even if those particular civilians are interfering with other civilians' rights. I thought the American government now held the right to detain any civilians for questioning on suspicion of terrorism, without charging them for anything? That impedes their right to freedom, and their right to a hasty trial, because they are suspected of impeding on other civilians' right to a safe and healthy life

Also, people are locked up/fined for hate speech. You could say that their right to free speech is being taken away because they are interfering with other peoples' right to peace/love etc

...I dunno, I don't wanna go further off topic, but I think Britain and USA (and even Australia) are very similar in that both will impede on some/very few of their peoples' rights in order to protect them for the greater good

ANYWAY, back on topic, I think that perhaps decriminilisation is the way to go. I don't have all the facts about marijuana, it's effects, long term and short term, but from the way that many people are talking about it on here, it seems to be relatively harmless. "Relatively" because, as with any mind altering substance, there's gotta be some negative side effects.

So yeah, basically my position is there should be further scientific research done on it, and based on that, there should be some sort of decriminalisation.

 

The taxation facet of why MJ is illegal is an interesting, but in my view incorrect, angle.

In my view, MJ and other similar drugs being illegal grants government another means with which to subjugate "undesirable" portions of the population. MJ is not necessarily the drug of choice for the rich. One can grow it themselves and enjoy it themselves, unlike, for example, cocaine, which is widely regarded as a "rich person" drug. By criminalizing MJ, it becomes incredibly easy for police to charge otherwise perfectly law-abiding people with a crime and lock them up.

 

Hmm, interesting. We seem to have hit a fundamental difference in opinion, which is always a good and intellectually stimulating thing.

You say that it is the job of the government to protect the rights of an individual. I wholeheartedly agree. Especially since I happen to be one of the individuals in the system. And indeed, the specter of 1984 is ever so slightly hanging over any suggestion that the government should have more control over private lives; which is a warning that we should heed. However, I disagree with the idea that government serves individuals without any regard to society as a whole, though this might just be a reflection of different social attitudes in the US and UK.

The concept of liberty is a complicated one. While people are free to do what they want, there are laws that regulate this. Most laws are designed to protect the liberty of one individual from being interferred on by another. As I see it, the logical extension of protection of a single individual is the protection of society. This is reflected in the UK's anti-social behaviour laws.

To bring this post *slightly* back on topic, on healthcare. Once again, this has probably arisen from cultural difference. In the UK, healthcare is state run (apart from the parallel private system). Therefore, I feel that there is an obligation of sorts for individuals who benefit from the health services to at least attempt to improve their health. I'm not advocating forced exercise programmes and so on, because the onus in on the individual to choose. However, the problem lies with addictive substances. Cannabis is addictive. It might not be as severe as nictoine (though it's questionable and more work needs to be done) but addictive nonetheless. By definition, people with a dependency on any substance are unable to fully and completely make descisions that can positivly impact on their health. In short, it acts as a way of removing what choice people have.

 

Exactly. Another important reason marijuana was made illegal in the first place was in interest of people who specifically enforced alcohol prohibition. Alcohol prohibition officers would be laid off due to the ending of law, thus, they needed to make something else illegal to keep their own jobs. They decided on marijuana. This is important because it shows how the interests of a minority can change laws in their favor, at the expense of so many others.

 

I must disagree. As shown during the Alcohol prohibition, banning any substances create an underground demand for it, even a society. Because the production of these substances becomes less monitored for their safety, the concentrations of alcohol went up considerably. Now, individuals are getting even MORE drunk, greately increasing the risk of disease and cancer in the long run. Of course, with the more people requiring medical attention because of disease, the more people will be requiring payments from the healthcare insurance industries, costing them even more money than before... all because its illegal.

 

Be careful there, as that's the same argument the Religious Right uses as they try to keep us from marriage or any other type of equal rights. Majority rule is not always correct.

Besides, I don't know that it was a minority that wanted MJ criminalized. I don't know the full history, but I do know there was a huge government propaganda campaign against marijuana, the most famous piece being the full-length movie entitled "Reefer Madness."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Azf320JDdqU

If you watch it (or find some of the highlights), anyone who's ever smoked MJ or known anyone that's smoked MJ can tell you the propositions put forth by the movie are complete and utter BS. A lot of that misinformation and those preconceptions are still out there today. But, studies are beginning to show that MJ is no more of a gateway drug than is alcohol or tobacco, and that it's less harmful over the long term than alcohol. Admittedly, it does take a heavier toll than does tobacco, but neither tobacco nor MJ permanently destroy brain cells when you partake.

I would also counter the argument that it's addictive by restating that MANY MANY things are addictive that are not criminalized. CAFFEINE is addictive, very addictive. If I don't have a cup of coffee in the morning, by about 4:00 p.m., I am pretty much unable to function because I'll have a headache that could level a small town and my body will simply begin to shut down. Yet, I can go to Tim Horton's or Dunkin' Donuts or *shudders* Starbucks and legally buy a coffee. Heck, I can even go to my local supermarket and buy coffee in large quantities and make it on my own. Caffeine, when consumed in excess (more than about six regular-sized, as in 8 oz., cups of coffee per day), has been shown to have deleterious effects on the human body because it puts excessive strain on the heart and other vital organs as it accelerates their functions to potentially dangerous levels. Yet, it's completely legal.

Realistically, there is no valid argument for MJ being illegal. But, when one begins to view how enforcement efforts are conducted, and then one takes into account the general profile of those who are busted for MJ, the picture gets much clearer. Police do all sorts of drug enforcement actions in poorer neighborhoods, and otherwise law-abiding citizens that happen to have a joint on them, citizens that police had absolutely no business stopping in the first place, wind up spending time in jail and suddenly have a criminal record. Drugs are everywhere, yet police enforcement of drug laws IS NOT.

 

[/QUOTE]
I would also counter the argument that it's addictive by restating that MANY MANY things are addictive that are not criminalized. CAFFEINE is addictive, very addictive. If I don't have a cup of coffee in the morning, by about 4:00 p.m., I am pretty much unable to function because I'll have a headache that could level a small town and my body will simply begin to shut down. Yet, I can go to Tim Horton's or Dunkin' Donuts or *shudders* Starbucks and legally buy a coffee. Heck, I can even go to my local supermarket and buy coffee in large quantities and make it on my own. Caffeine, when consumed in excess (more than about six regular-sized, as in 8 oz., cups of coffee per day), has been shown to have deleterious effects on the human body because it puts excessive strain on the heart and other vital organs as it accelerates their functions to potentially dangerous levels. Yet, it's completely legal.

Realistically, there is no valid argument for MJ being illegal. But, when one begins to view how enforcement efforts are conducted, and then one takes into account the general profile of those who are busted for MJ, the picture gets much clearer. Police do all sorts of drug enforcement actions in poorer neighborhoods, and otherwise law-abiding citizens that happen to have a joint on them, citizens that police had absolutely no business stopping in the first place, wind up spending time in jail and suddenly have a criminal record. Drugs are everywhere, yet police enforcement of drug laws IS NOT.[/QUOTE]

On your first point about the harms of addiction. Yes, there are adictive substances out there that are legal. And yes, they happen to be legal (partly due to societal reasons, partly due to *some* scientific basis). However, I'm slightly more concerned about the actual effects of the drugs itself. Caffeine puts the body under strain. It increases the heart rate and causes vasodilation. It's not something I wouldn't reccomend in overly large quantites, but still-it's within a theoretical "normal" function. However, cannabis acts as a psychoactive drug. It causes hallucinations. And the long term effects of these are largely unknown. Whatever you might say about alcohol and tobacco and their effect on perception (it's there, and it has an effect on the mind); neither of those drugs cause hallucinations or "altered perception". That concerns me, personally.

On the second point. You say there's no reason for cannabis to be illegal. A valid point, but allow me to reverse the question. Is there any reason for it to be legal? I hardly think that "because lots of people use it" is a valid excuse. I take your point that it's not necessarily as dangerous as perhaps was presented, however, why should *this* drug, any drug be legal (In a recreational sense, of course)? I realise I'm being overly idealistic, however, I don't see any really valid reason for cannabis to be legalised.

 

Ok, the "rich" drugs are illegal too, so how is this singling out the "undesirable"? Yeah, I think it's foolish to lock someone up for smokin MJ, but I would never smoke it. And part of me is glad that it is illegal. The other part of me can see how it may be "harmless"... but I know people who are ruining their lives with drugs.

 

This is an instance where I'd have to see some data to back up that statement. I've smoked. I've known a sizable number of other people that have smoked and smoke on a regular basis. I have never had a hallucination, nor have I witnessed hallucinations. Without seeing data that contradicts my own experiences, I'm inclined to believe that the hallucinations are a myth (a myth very much played up in "Reefer Madness," by the way).

Be very careful here. You're using comparable arguments to those the anti-gay forces out there use. "Why should same-sex marriage be legal. Just because the homos wanna get married ain't a valid excuse," is totally something they say.

And the response to that is found in the beginning of the Declaration of Independence.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. "Liberty" covers quite a bit and has been used as the basis of some of the more landmark judicial decisions in U.S. history, such as Roe v. Wade and, incredibly relevant to gay people everywhere, Lawrence v. Texas.

The short answer is that there need not be a valid reason for something to be legal. There needs to be a valid reason to make something ILLEGAL. There is no such reasoning that can be applied to marijuana usage.

This is not quite as black and white, but the short answer is in the enforcement.

In all reality, something is only as illegal as enforcement efforts make it. A simple example of that is the speed limit in Michigan. The law states that on most freeways, the speed limit is 70 miles per hour. According to the law, driving 71 miles per hour on The Jeffries or I-696 is illegal. Heck, in the case of the Southfield, the law says the speed limit is 55 miles per hour.

Yet, the average speed of traffic on all three stretches of metro Detroit freeway that I mentioned is 75 to 85 miles per hour. The law says that every single person that drives at those speeds anywhere in the State of Michigan should be cited or worse. Yet, especially on the Southfield, one is in absolutely no danger of being pulled over while going 80 miles per hour in a 55 miles per hour zone. In essence, going 80 miles per hour on the Southfield is LEGAL.

The same principle holds true for drug enforcement. Yes, cocaine is "illegal." But, lack of police enforcement efforts and the price of cocaine essentially render it legal (poor "druggies" can't afford cocaine). Conversely, marijuana, crack, and other drugs are quite affordable to the average "druggie," and police enforcement efforts are quite heavy in regards to MJ and crack. MJ and crack are quite illegal. Have you ever seen an episode of "Cops" where the police are doing drug stings in a ritzy neighborhood? No. They spend their time in the poor neighborhoods because poor people are considered undesirable by our society.