Uruguay to legalize and sell cannabis


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Politics : Uruguay to legalize and sell cannabis

Previous · 1 · 2
Author Message
Profile Ex
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 12 Mar 12
Posts: 2895
Credit: 1,797,699
RAC: 1,325
United States
Message 1250937 - Posted: 24 Jun 2012, 16:39:37 UTC - in response to Message 1250801.

In a recent conversation with a thorasic surgeon the subject drifted onto various forms of lung irritant and toxin that might lead to lung cancer. He said, and I can only repeat what he said, that he is seeing an increase in lung cancer among younger people, and that this tends to be among younger people who have been active cannabis users. His hypothesis is that because they tend to inhale more deeply, and hold the smoke in their lungs for longer the tars have longer to deposit on the lung surface deeper in the lung. He says these tars are the prime cause of lung cancer, and are just as, if not more, prevalent in cannabis smoke as tobacco smoke.
I admit this is just the word of one surgeon working an inner-city hospital, so is far from scientific in its nature.

I'd have to agree with this. It seems to make sense that anything you smoke can cause cancer...
-But cigarettes are legal.

Far as driving, I'm sure someone who is stoned is probably impaired. However anyone who has had enough to drink is DEFINITELY impaired.
-But alcohol is legal.

So basically I feel what it comes down to is, if we allow ciggs and alcohol, there's no reason you can give me why Marijuana should be illegal. Unless of course they illegalize ciggs and alcohol too. (And we know how that would go)

Legalize it, and you'll get rid of the modern day Capones...
____________
-Dave #2

3.2.0-33

rob smithProject donor
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 7 Mar 03
Posts: 8535
Credit: 59,450,745
RAC: 86,128
United Kingdom
Message 1251052 - Posted: 24 Jun 2012, 21:42:10 UTC

It is often recanted that if either tobacco or alcohol were to be the "new" drug then they would be banned in much the same way as cannabis is. One truth with tobacco and alcohol is that they've been around for long enough in common use for governments to have worked out that they are a very good source of income, despite the ongoing health care costs associated with them both.
____________
Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

bobby
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 1962
Credit: 14,899,001
RAC: 2,778
United States
Message 1251055 - Posted: 24 Jun 2012, 21:47:22 UTC - in response to Message 1251052.

It is often recanted that if either tobacco or alcohol were to be the "new" drug then they would be banned in much the same way as cannabis is. One truth with tobacco and alcohol is that they've been around for long enough in common use for governments to have worked out that they are a very good source of income, despite the ongoing health care costs associated with them both.


The same truth can't be said for cannabis can it?
____________
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

BarryAZ
Send message
Joined: 1 Apr 01
Posts: 2580
Credit: 12,285,640
RAC: 3,851
United States
Message 1251102 - Posted: 25 Jun 2012, 1:28:53 UTC - in response to Message 1251055.

The thing is, both tobacco and alcohol have been demonstrated to be quite effective killers -- this is important, especially when we know we have to kill off the poor and elderly as quickly as possible in order to balance government budgets. <smile>



The same truth can't be said for cannabis can it?

Profile Bob DeWoody
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 May 10
Posts: 1629
Credit: 575,274
RAC: 334
United States
Message 1251121 - Posted: 25 Jun 2012, 2:45:24 UTC - in response to Message 1250472.

Oh, how little you know Sarge. Nobody has ever thought of me as a liberal hippie. And I can't afford to smoke enough pot to be labelled as a chronic smoker. I don't know you personally but I'd be curious to know whether you are a consumer of alcohol and if so how much?


Oh, how much I know.
Chronic is slang for weed.
Too bad you missed the sarcasm. It's ok for the well-to-do to smoke it, but not for the lower class. Remember, it'll be a gateway drug for them, sending in them into wild rages!
Guess your high school was one of the few that lacked the cliques, jocks, preps and heads? (Heads = potheads.) Except the jocks were smoking it, too. Such irony. Again, you missed the sarcasm.

As for my ccnsumption of weed: none. EVER.
Alcohol? Prolly far less than you and the average person.

If people would come out and say stright up what they mean, other less clever people when it comes to writing in code might not miss their point so often.
____________
Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

Profile betregerProject donor
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 29 Jun 99
Posts: 2500
Credit: 5,238,257
RAC: 8,134
United States
Message 1251122 - Posted: 25 Jun 2012, 2:54:10 UTC - in response to Message 1251121.

Bob, given the laws in this country it is probably not safe to state one's views for some people. Face it there are many who feel it is their duty to persecute those who advocate any use of pot.
____________

BarryAZ
Send message
Joined: 1 Apr 01
Posts: 2580
Credit: 12,285,640
RAC: 3,851
United States
Message 1251409 - Posted: 25 Jun 2012, 17:24:33 UTC - in response to Message 1250643.

Sarge, that alcohol *and* smoke tobacco is likely off mark. Back in the day, I inhaled -- but NEVER had a cigarette. I suspect I have company from back then and today. It has been a VERY long time since I inhaled -- though when going through chemo 7 years ago, my oncologist did suggest it might be a useful option.



For further elaboration: what's the best estimate of the true percentage of those who use marijuana that do not also drink alcohol and smoke Philip Morris' tobacco cigarettes? I will bet it is close to 0%. So, it might be a good idea to drop the false di/trichotomy.

BarryAZ
Send message
Joined: 1 Apr 01
Posts: 2580
Credit: 12,285,640
RAC: 3,851
United States
Message 1251410 - Posted: 25 Jun 2012, 17:28:38 UTC - in response to Message 1250648.

Sarge, your argument is that by legalizing weed, the use rates will soar. That is an opinion.

Of course, by making it legal, we will depopulate jails and we know all those convicts are terrible drivers.




Sure, the sin tax will sound great to a lot of us.
Except that you probably really do not want to be around the chronic users of the chronic. Right? At best, they might serve as a source for jokes, regarding their lack of self-control.
At worst, we'll find out that when they drive impaired, they'll cause accidents, too. Then, despite the money raked in from the sin tax and the libertarian point of view, when one of those accidents draws you or a relative, loved one or friend in as collateral damage, then you'll be screaming.

BarryAZ
Send message
Joined: 1 Apr 01
Posts: 2580
Credit: 12,285,640
RAC: 3,851
United States
Message 1251414 - Posted: 25 Jun 2012, 17:31:11 UTC - in response to Message 1250650.

Sarge, notice my use of tense there -- none of that set of former presidents would run today (two being deceased). For what it's worth, Nixon at one point in an interview said that he tried it.




But surely Richard & Ronald abstained? Maybe even Jimmy and GHW?


BarryAZ
Send message
Joined: 1 Apr 01
Posts: 2580
Credit: 12,285,640
RAC: 3,851
United States
Message 1251430 - Posted: 25 Jun 2012, 17:42:44 UTC - in response to Message 1250709.

Dave, I agree with most of this -- aside from the DNR comment -- which I'd submit would be useful in many cases (not just for drug overdoses). Note, a DNR wouldn't matter for most drug use scenarios -- just severe overdoses (or stupid first timers who don't have a clue).

The thing is, a very large piece of our health care costs are due to a lack of advanced directives being in place and/or if in place, not followed, resulting in heroic interventions and invasive support which rarely has a good outcome.



a) I don't think marijuana smokers can be classified as 100% drinkers and smokers. I think people of all lifestyles and walks of life are equally as likely to have "partaken".

b) Gary: I think it's ridiculous that you think someone who has "partaken" should have to sign a DNR. Really? If that's the case then I'd argue everyone who wants to have a beer better be signing the same damn DNR.

c) Taxation is fine. The government loves making sin tax, and from what I understand it's huge money for them. Why would they not want another thing to tax?

d) Countries where marijuana sale is legal have no higher incidence of hard drug addiction or crime than countries where it is illegal.

e) States where it is legal do not seem to be reporting any trend of problems stemming from the sale and use of marijuana

f) I personally believe alcohol is a far greater threat to public health. FAR greater.

BarryAZ
Send message
Joined: 1 Apr 01
Posts: 2580
Credit: 12,285,640
RAC: 3,851
United States
Message 1251432 - Posted: 25 Jun 2012, 17:47:30 UTC - in response to Message 1250735.

Gary, I pretty much agree with you on this one -- though more of the health care cost is at other end of life scenarios as well where an advanced directive should apply. If marijuana joined tobacco and alcohol in the list of 'regulated and taxed, but legal' and required a *conditional* DNR -- it would be along with tobacco and alcohol though, right. After all, tobacco and alcohol cause a lot of lingering death, and alcohol certainly causes a fair amount of 'wrap around a pole' scenarios.

b) Gary: I think it's ridiculous that you think someone who has "partaken" should have to sign a DNR. Really? If that's the case then I'd argue everyone who wants to have a beer better be signing the same damn DNR.

I believe there is a misunderstanding here. Not just weed. Heroin, oxycontin, morphine, cocaine, crack, ice, angel dust, E, LSD, mushrooms, GHB, etc. I said any drug. Got a prescription? no DNR needed. Medical weed is a different discussion.

I believe a significant fraction of those who would abuse these drugs if they were freely available would be persons who could never afford the medical care that their abuse would be expected to cost society. Advanced life support is very costly. A fair trade off, make it legal, pure and available, but society isn't going to save you when you OD or wrap your car around a telephone pole.

Profile Ex
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 12 Mar 12
Posts: 2895
Credit: 1,797,699
RAC: 1,325
United States
Message 1251453 - Posted: 25 Jun 2012, 18:22:28 UTC - in response to Message 1251410.

Of course, by making it legal, we will depopulate jails...


I dunno about that. People that are in jail far pot related offenses I would believe were people in possession of very large amounts, at a time when it is illegal to do so (currently). If they change any laws I don't think any existing sentences should be thrown out. I still think even if use was made legal, with or without a prescription, there would still be laws preventing people from trafficking large amounts, unless of course doing it within the rules of the system (regulation, taxation, permits, etc).
____________
-Dave #2

3.2.0-33

BarryAZ
Send message
Joined: 1 Apr 01
Posts: 2580
Credit: 12,285,640
RAC: 3,851
United States
Message 1251457 - Posted: 25 Jun 2012, 18:29:35 UTC - in response to Message 1251453.

Well, I didn't put a time limit on it -- wouldn't be instantaneous upon legalization. But I suspect some states, in a budgetary move would press to reduce the population sooner rather than later.

Just how many folks are in jails and prisons for violation of alcohol and tobacco illegal trafficking? It isn't zero of course, but I suspect it isn't all that large either.

Understand, for the municipalities, state as well as the Federal government - prison populations cost a lot of money (a LOT of money for most states), and of course enforcement of 'drug war' laws also costs a lot of money. It becomes a major budget issue, via regulation and taxation, what is currently a major drain on budgets becomes a revenue source.


Of course, by making it legal, we will depopulate jails...


I dunno about that. People that are in jail far pot related offenses I would believe were people in possession of very large amounts, at a time when it is illegal to do so (currently). If they change any laws I don't think any existing sentences should be thrown out. I still think even if use was made legal, with or without a prescription, there would still be laws preventing people from trafficking large amounts, unless of course doing it within the rules of the system (regulation, taxation, permits, etc).


Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 2082
Credit: 50,153,587
RAC: 310,416
Message 1251492 - Posted: 25 Jun 2012, 19:13:52 UTC
Last modified: 21 Mar 2014, 14:34:20 UTC

--

BarryAZ
Send message
Joined: 1 Apr 01
Posts: 2580
Credit: 12,285,640
RAC: 3,851
United States
Message 1251593 - Posted: 25 Jun 2012, 22:00:28 UTC - in response to Message 1251492.

Not to worry Guy, if it is bad for people and/or the environment, oligarchic capitalism will provide it readily.


Legalize all drugs--natural and unnatural. If capitalism can't handle the demand, it should be taken over by the government at all levels. Free chemicals for everybody.

The U.S. needs this right now.

Profile Misfit
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 21 Jun 01
Posts: 21790
Credit: 2,510,901
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1256452 - Posted: 6 Jul 2012, 16:07:01 UTC

Uruguay president: Only pot will be legal

BOGOTA, Colombia (AP) -- Uruguay's president has made it clear that his plan for legalizing marijuana in the South American nation does not mean he favors legalizing any other illicit drugs.

President Jose Mujica said in an interview Thursday with Colombia's RCN radio network that he does not yet know when his government will present Uruguay's Congress with the legislative proposal. Mujica's party dominates Congress.

He says the plan is for the government to sell marijuana at a cheap and reasonable price then monitor what each consumer uses. The idea is to take drug profits out of the hands of criminals.

Mujica says that while drug addiction is a medical problem, drug trafficking is an unwinnable police problem.

Uruguay would be the world's first nation to sell marijuana directly.
____________

Join BOINC Synergy!

Profile Blurf
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 2 Sep 06
Posts: 7579
Credit: 6,974,262
RAC: 2,927
United States
Message 1261685 - Posted: 18 Jul 2012, 4:22:19 UTC

Having worked in the field of Addictions in the past (formerly licensed social worker specializing in substance abuse) I've seen the full spectrum of problems caused by many different drugs.

In my experience, Alcohol is almost always a companion to the cannabis smoker. Not 100% but in a very high correlation.

I am also of two minds.

1) I have friends with cancer who have benefitted from smoking Cannabis. It has eased their pain. I cannot deny this although I choose not be present when they smoke.

2) I have a family member who is a chronic alcoholic and cannabis addict. Those who say it's not addictive--sorry I disagree. If he drank he couldn't stay away from the smoke---it was a hand-held dbl addiction. Now that he's sober he doesn't smoke but the multiple times he's relapsed, he HAS to smoke when drunk.

It's a double-edged sword for me.
____________


OzzFan
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 13625
Credit: 31,055,838
RAC: 20,614
United States
Message 1261778 - Posted: 18 Jul 2012, 11:42:25 UTC - in response to Message 1261685.

Marijuana is psychologically addictive, not physically addictive. Since psychological addictions are also known as "habits", they are not classified as addictions.

Profile Ex
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 12 Mar 12
Posts: 2895
Credit: 1,797,699
RAC: 1,325
United States
Message 1261822 - Posted: 18 Jul 2012, 13:41:01 UTC
Last modified: 18 Jul 2012, 13:50:04 UTC

Anything can be addictive. Food, sex, shopping, driving, working, sporting, oh and even blogging.

[sarcasm]
Perhaps the above should all be made illegal also?
[/sarcasm]


I think that someone who has a tendency for addiction will have a tendency to be addicted to anything can supply a 'high', perhaps this is why some people notice a correlation between alcohol/cigarette users, and users of other substances?

In the end, the real issue at hand is the addict, not the object of their addiction.

We don't make alcohol illegal, instead we make harsh laws to enforce safe use of alcohol, and deal with the addicts on a per-addict basis..
____________
-Dave #2

3.2.0-33

Previous · 1 · 2

Message boards : Politics : Uruguay to legalize and sell cannabis

Copyright © 2014 University of California