No, not naïve...

Michel for a 20-25 year old, you possess some fascinating insights into: -

Military Strategy
Military Tactics
Logistics
Politics
Economics
Diplomacy
Psychology
Bureaucracy

We can now add: -
Science
Chemistry
Biology
Medicine

Oh my, why haven't we got the one world government, with Michel as "Supreme Leader"?

You realize that science is not a subject? Unless of course you are talking about the philosophy of science. Meh...in that case leave it on ;)

So, can I count on your support when the day comes I rise to rule the world? :P

No, not naïve...

Michel for a 20-25 year old, you possess some fascinating insights into: -

Military Strategy
Military Tactics
Logistics
Politics
Economics
Diplomacy
Psychology
Bureaucracy

We can now add: -
Science
Chemistry
Biology
Medicine

Oh my, why haven't we got the one world government, with Michel as "Supreme Leader"?

You realize that science is not a subject? Unless of course you are talking about the philosophy of science. Meh...in that case leave it on ;)

So, can I count on your support when the day comes I rise to rule the world? :P

As long as you don't become a dictator, Michiel ;)

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

It is clear to me that you are the one that is naive if you really are so totally unaware how easy it is to get hold of pot. Both when I was in London it was ridiculously easy and here it is even easier, mostly because Vancouver is world renowned for the quality of the pot grown here. Its won awards.

Again, which is why you decriminalize it. Possession, use and sale become legal, but you keep the stigma and you keep prices inflated because production remains illegal. You can still control the quality of the weed but at the same time you can go after people who produce it. It works in the Netherlands, why wouldnt it work elsewhere?

The data is simply not in about the long term effects of pot use, mainly because most people don't go around admitting that they smoke it on a regular basis.

Oh no? What was the study Chris posted at the start of thread? I think that if you follow people around for 20 years you get a pretty good idea of what the long term effects are. I'm sorry, but now you are just flat out denying scientific data because its telling you something you don't like.

As to your concern over the addiction of other, more harmful drugs. I worked for the UK anti-drugs co-ordinator for a while and go to read quite a few reports on it. The one that did it for me was the one that pointed out that before Heroin was criminalised there were around 60 registered addicts in the whole UK. That number soared once it was was made illegal.

I'm sorry but what? So basically you are claiming that if you make a drug illegal, its addictiveness increases? Thats not how chemistry works. The chemical properties of heroin do not change depending on whether its legal or illegal to use it.

My bet is that the reason that number changed is that because it was legal before, people were still addicted but no one cared if you were. The police didn't catch you and it was pretty easy for those people to stay outside the system or at least keep their addiction outside the system. Now when the heroin is made illegal suddenly you get the police who starts to arrest people over heroin possession, they end up in the system and therefor in the official statistics. Statistically it seems like there is an increase, but in reality that increase is simply the result because you started counting differently and not that there are actually any more or less addicts than before.

Make all drugs legal. Educated people on the risks of the harmful ones and give them access to treatment.

Yeah I don't think you understand how addiction works if you think its just a matter of giving them treatment and then its magically gone. Addiction is for life, you can get clean, but after that there is the life long battle against relapse. And the best way to avoid a relapse is to remove or avoid relapse triggers. Now what do you think would happen to an addict when he can buy cocaine in the local super market? Or in a specialized drug store on the corner of the street? That are relapse triggers. You are not making it easy for people to get clean and stay clean if they are literally surrounded by relapse triggers.

And not just that, we are talking about drugs now that are far more addictive than alcohol and also far more disruptive to ones mental state.

If you think there is actual hard evidence that pot is more dangerous than eating a high fat diet, post it here.

Well I suggest you read the study Chris linked in the OP. From what I gather its about as dangerous as a high fat diet, maybe a bit more. "But then why aren't we banning a high fat diet as well!" you would respond if this wasn't such an obvious ploy. "And why aren't we banning alcohol and all those other things that are as dangerous or more dangerous than pot".

Well that is idiot logic. Just because we have legalized A which is dangerous, but not B which is still dangerous but just less dangerous than A doesn't mean we should either ban A or legalize B. B remains dangerous, so why would you legalize it? And why ban A? Well there might be practical concerns against it. In the case of alcohol you can't, its just not possible. In the case of unhealthy food, well, again its pretty much impossible. No one would accept the government banning their favorite meal, the fast food industry would lobby it so hard it would never become a law and there are of course also the practical concerns of defining what unhealthy food actually is. What has been done though (and I support this) is banning certain ingredients that make food unhealthy. Trans-fats for example.

I'm sorry but what? So basically you are claiming that if you make a drug illegal, its addictiveness increases? Thats not how chemistry works. The chemical properties of heroin do not change depending on whether its legal or illegal to use it.

It's generally known though that 'forbidden things' are much more interesting and attracting to human beings, that's also called chemistry:)

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

Residents are complaining about growing criminality problems due to drug dealers in the streets.

Today, about 80% of the "coffee shops" sell, among their products, such kind of cannabis.

The liberal drug policy of the authorities in the Netherlands especially led to problems in "border hot spots" that attracted "drug tourism" as well as trafficking and related law enforcement problems.

Doesn't seem quite so good in the Netherlands after all does it?

Okay, it lists three things here, Ill go over them.

More drug dealers in the streets. Yes that is the result of the change in rules in a number of border towns to combat drug tourism. They essentially banned the sale of drugs to non Dutch residents, which of course opened up the market for illegal dealers to fill in the gap. Furthermore, a number of coffeeshops closed or got closed because of this rule, thus widening the gap for illegal dealers to fill.

Then the drug tourism. You know what the policy makers consider the problem there? No, nothing actually criminal, no they are against it because it results in increased car traffic to those places. I live in one of those border towns and that was literally what the Mayor said when he defended his policy, that now the car traffic was reduced in the city. The drug trafficking and law enforcement problems simply result from the fact that the Dutch laws are much more relaxed towards drugs than for example in Belgium and Germany. So to be sure, the drug trafficking and law enforcement problems are mostly on the other side of the border. '

Now, the 80% thing refers to extremely potent weed being sold in coffeeshops. The thing is, I'm not sure if the government has actually made that illegal to sell yet.

In any case, our drug policy is far from perfect and personally I think its not getting better. The last few governments have all been busy with restricting and banning stuff rather than continuing the line of allowing it to happen within reason. Then again, that is also partly the fault of the people that grow the weed and that have been breeding their weed in such a way that it has become extremely potent.

As a child of the 60's, and not admitting to anything :) Why do these unfortunate 'Pot Heads' believe they are superior to alcoholic's?

Note: I do agree that Cannabis should be the 'Drug of Choice' over Alcohol. Due to the violence associated with Alcohol.

Your note gives one of the answers to your question Clyde:)

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

You realize that science is not a subject? Unless of course you are talking about the philosophy of science. Meh...in that case leave it on ;)

So, can I count on your support when the day comes I rise to rule the world? :P

Yep, after all, you couldn't do any worse than the shrubs that are already "governing" us.

As a child of the 60's, and not admitting to anything :) Why do these unfortunate 'Pot Heads' believe they are superior to alcoholic's?

Note: I do agree that Cannabis should be the 'Drug of Choice' over Alcohol. Due to the violence associated with Alcohol.

Your note gives one of the answers to your question Clyde:)

Understand. But...

Cannabis use, in a Public Space, Sidewalk, or Park is not Superior to Alcohol use. I see NO Difference between Imposing one's 'High', or Drunk, upon other's.

Fully agreed, one isn't better than the other. The best thing would be if neither of the two would be visible in the streets. Same with cigarettes actually, come to think of it.

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

Has anyone stopped to think of the 500lb gorilla in the room?

Ban drugs & booze?

What are all the governments going to do about all that lovely tax money lost?

Has anyone stopped to think of the 500lb gorilla in the room?

Ban drugs & booze?

What are all the governments going to do about all that lovely tax money lost?

Tax weed? That might be the rational to get it legalized.

Has anyone stopped to think of the 500lb gorilla in the room?

Ban drugs & booze?

What are all the governments going to do about all that lovely tax money lost?

Tax weed? That might be the rational to get it legalized.

My mistake. I should have stated "Addictive Substances". After all, tobacco is addictive. All that lovely tax lost :-)

Fully agreed, one isn't better than the other. The best thing would be if neither of the two would be visible in the streets. Same with cigarettes actually, come to think of it.

You can drink in the street if you are over 18, but in practice if you are seen by the police carrying open beer cans or glasses and drinking from them you are liable to have them confiscated and be moved on. It is generally considered anti-social. Drinking is banned across all of London Transport. Personally I would ban street drinking and restrict it to licenced premises, dedicated areas, or private dwellings. But it would be impossible to police and monitor, which is why it hasn't been done. Street drinking

You cannot now smoke in workplaces, public buildings, or enclosed public areas e.g. pubs, clubs, restaurants etc. Smoking is also banned at railway stations across the network. You cant effectively ban smoking in the street or other open spaces, it would be unenforceable, which is also why it hasn't been done.

IIRSmoking

A government of any country has a moral duty to try to protect the health of its citizens, by issuing advice and guidance, and where necessary bringing in appropriate legislation and laws. But that has to be balanced against Civil liberties. And as has already been mentioned excise duties also come into it. Excise duty

Health warnings on cigarette packets have been in place for many years, and moves are afoot to introduce plain packaging. Neither of which infringe Civil liberties, but the public would never accept a smoking ban in the street. There was an initial moan about pubs but it worked in Ireland and it has worked here.

Making a popular commodity illegal to sell, purchase, or use, simply means that a black market will start up for it, run by criminals. We all know about the drug barons and cartels etc.

France is on the right track it seems:

http://www.afp.com/en/news/france-introduces-plain-packs-stub-out-high-smoking-rates

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

It is clear to me that you are the one that is naive if you really are so totally unaware how easy it is to get hold of pot. Both when I was in London it was ridiculously easy and here it is even easier, mostly because Vancouver is world renowned for the quality of the pot grown here. Its won awards.

Again, which is why you decriminalize it. Possession, use and sale become legal, but you keep the stigma and you keep prices inflated because production remains illegal. You can still control the quality of the weed but at the same time you can go after people who produce it. It works in the Netherlands, why wouldnt it work elsewhere?

The real question is why are you so keen on keeping the stigma? I am still not convinced that the risks of marijuana are enough that we need to stigmatise it...and as Julie has pointed out, making something illegal actually increases its attractiveness to teens.

The data is simply not in about the long term effects of pot use, mainly because most people don't go around admitting that they smoke it on a regular basis.

Oh no? What was the study Chris posted at the start of thread? I think that if you follow people around for 20 years you get a pretty good idea of what the long term effects are. I'm sorry, but now you are just flat out denying scientific data because its telling you something you don't like.

You mean this paper? http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/add.12703/full

The key conclusions from the report, published today in the journal Addiction, are:

* Driving while intoxicated with cannabis doubles the risk of road traffic accidents. In comparison, being intoxicated with alcohol increased the risk of a crash 6-15 times.
Hmmm...already discussed in this thread. The risks are still less than texting while driving and comparable to having a small child in your car.

Conclusion. Don't smoke weed and drive.

* Approximately 9 percent of people who have ever used cannabis become dependent, compared to 32 percent for nicotine, 23 percent for heroin, and 15 percent for alcohol.
32 % for nicotine? Yet its still legal?
15% for alcohol?
Yet cannabis is the problem here?

As to decriminalisation, it seems that these addiction rates are the same in the Netherlands: " In 2011 cannabis was the primary drug problem for 48% of individuals entering drug treatment, and for 58% of new treatment entrants in the Netherlands."

* Maternal cannabis use during pregnancy modestly reduces birth weight.
"These studies have a number of limitations. First, self-reported rates of cannabis use during pregnancy are typically low (2–6%). Studies that have measured cannabis use using urinalyses suggest that there is considerable under-reporting of use, which probably attenuates associations between cannabis use and poor birth outcomes. Secondly, it has often been difficult to fully adjust for the effects of major confounders such as cigarette smoking in analyses of the effects of cannabis use on birth weight. "

So not particularly conclusive then.

* Daily cannabis users double their risk of experiencing psychotic symptoms and disorders, especially if they have a personal or family history of psychosis, and if they start using cannabis in their mid-teens

"it is difficult to decide whether cannabis use has had any effects on psychosis incidence, because even if the relationship were causal, cannabis use would produce a very modest increase in incidence. The detection of any such increases is complicated by changes in diagnostic criteria and psychiatric services for psychosis, the poor quality of administrative data on the treated cases of psychosis, and possibly by social improvements (e.g. in antenatal care) that may have reduced incidence of psychosis during the period in which cannabis use increased."

The study still has not concluded whether the correlation between cannabis use is causal, or if it is because people with schizophrenic tendencies are self medicating. There is an argument to be made that if they are self medicating then they are not getting the actual help they need. The causal link, however, has not been conclusively proven.

"Researchers who remain sceptical about a casual explanation often argue that a causal hypothesis is inconsistent with the absence of any increase in the incidence of schizophrenia, as cannabis use has increased among young adults. There is mixed evidence on trends in schizophrenia incidence. An Australian modelling study did not find any increased psychosis incidence after steep increases in cannabis use during the 1980s and 1990s [98], but a similar British modelling study [99] argued that it was too early to detect any increase in psychosis incidence in Britain. Two case register studies in Britain [100] and Switzerland [101] reported an increased incidence of psychoses in recent birth cohorts, but a British study of people treated for schizophrenia in general practice failed to do so [90]."


* Daily cannabis use that begins in adolescence and continues through adulthood appears linked to cognitive impairment, but the mechanism and whether this is reversible remains unclear.

The evidence is still not in on this one (according to this report. If we are going to play it safe with our young people then we probably want to legalise it to help keep it out of their hands.

* People who smoke cannabis daily as teenagers are more likely to use other illicit drugs, but some evidence suggests the relationship may be due to shared risk factors.

These risk factors are: " (i) that cannabis users have more opportunities to use other illicit drugs because these are supplied by the same black market as cannabis; (ii) that early cannabis users were more likely to use other illicit drugs for reasons that are unrelated to their cannabis use (e.g. risk-taking or sensation-seeking); and (iii) that the pharmacological effects of cannabis increased a young person's propensity to use other illicit drugs"
The report found no conclusive evidence for number (iii)



* Smoking cannabis increases the risk of cardiovascular disease, mainly because most cannabis users have smoked, or still smoke tobacco as well.

So smoking it seems to be the problem, If it is legal there may be other alternatives, such as edibles.

To sum up. Read the report, not the newspaper summaries. I stand by my argument that all the data is not yet in. As supported by the (actual) report that Chris posted at the beginning of this thread.

As to your concern over the addiction of other, more harmful drugs. I worked for the UK anti-drugs co-ordinator for a while and go to read quite a few reports on it. The one that did it for me was the one that pointed out that before Heroin was criminalised there were around 60 registered addicts in the whole UK. That number soared once it was was made illegal.

I'm sorry but what? So basically you are claiming that if you make a drug illegal, its addictiveness increases? Thats not how chemistry works. The chemical properties of heroin do not change depending on whether its legal or illegal to use it.

I'm sorry that you don't understand how addiction works. To get addicted to something you have to be exposed to it. Drug dealers use many methods to get their client to try the drugs. I am pretty sure that if drugs are legal and regulated giving out free samples at the school gates would not be allowed...and if the legal trade drives the illegal trade out of business then this won't be happening.

My bet is that the reason that number changed is that because it was legal before, people were still addicted but no one cared if you were. The police didn't catch you and it was pretty easy for those people to stay outside the system or at least keep their addiction outside the system.

That may or may not be true. I think it is unlikely because when something is not illegal people are MORE likely to seek help, not LESS likely. There is simply a greater supply of these drugs than there ever has been. They have to be going somewhere. It was not the multibillion industry then that it is today.

Now when the heroin is made illegal suddenly you get the police who starts to arrest people over heroin possession, they end up in the system and therefor in the official statistics. Statistically it seems like there is an increase, but in reality that increase is simply the result because you started counting differently and not that there are actually any more or less addicts than before.

The amount of heroin being produced simply does not back this statement up.

Make all drugs legal. Educated people on the risks of the harmful ones and give them access to treatment.

Yeah I don't think you understand how addiction works if you think its just a matter of giving them treatment and then its magically gone. Addiction is for life, you can get clean, but after that there is the life long battle against relapse. And the best way to avoid a relapse is to remove or avoid relapse triggers. Now what do you think would happen to an addict when he can buy cocaine in the local super market? Or in a specialized drug store on the corner of the street? That are relapse triggers. You are not making it easy for people to get clean and stay clean if they are literally surrounded by relapse triggers.

There are so many assumptions about what you think I understand here that I'm not going to bother answering.

And not just that, we are talking about drugs now that are far more addictive than alcohol and also far more disruptive to ones mental state.

It is clear that you do not understand the addictive nature and health problems associated with alcohol use, which every scientist will tell you is a far worse drug than marijuana.

If you think there is actual hard evidence that pot is more dangerous than eating a high fat diet, post it here.

Well I suggest you read the study Chris linked in the OP.

I suggest you do. It is clear you did not.

From what I gather its about as dangerous as a high fat diet, maybe a bit more. "But then why aren't we banning a high fat diet as well!" you would respond if this wasn't such an obvious ploy. "And why aren't we banning alcohol and all those other things that are as dangerous or more dangerous than pot".

Why not? Perhaps because when you are pushing a product that is addictive it is impossible to stop its use by making it illegal?

Well that is idiot logic. Just because we have legalized A which is dangerous, but not B which is still dangerous but just less dangerous than A doesn't mean we should either ban A or legalize B. B remains dangerous, so why would you legalize it? And why ban A? Well there might be practical concerns against it. In the case of alcohol you can't, its just not possible. In the case of unhealthy food, well, again its pretty much impossible. No one would accept the government banning their favorite meal, the fast food industry would lobby it so hard it would never become a law and there are of course also the practical concerns of defining what unhealthy food actually is. What has been done though (and I support this) is banning certain ingredients that make food unhealthy. Trans-fats for example.

As it also quite obvious, banning illegal drugs is also impossible. They are addictive and so the demand, once created, is self sustaining.

---

Reality Internet Personality

A good balanced post Es, but can I make some observations please.

Cannabis users are much like Linux users, they will defend their corner for their niche activity come what may. The basis seems to be that Cannabis use causes less harm than smoking cigarettes or alcohol, so why are they being unfairly victimised?

[quote]Conclusion. Don't smoke weed and drive.

The point is that smoking pot causes harm. How much harm compared to other drugs is purely academic, it still causes harm, and is not a valid reason to excuse it.

I am pretty convinced that the benefits outweigh the harm. Water can cause harm if you drink enough of it. I have no idea why it needs to be excused. As long as no one is forcing you to partake (and quite honestly you might benefit from a little once in a while) then what do you care?

It is also important to note that society's views have changed in the 21C. Smoking cigarettes is now generally considered to be anti-social, and the areas outside the back of offices are colloquially called "Pariahs Corner" or some such term. Workers skulk there like some sort of secondary life form.

The data is pretty conclusive about the dangers of secondary smoking. Cigarette smoke has far more dangerous chemicals than cannabis smoke. Personally I wouldn't recommend heave smoking of anything for the sake of the lungs. However, such things as vapourisers are available now that can reduce the harm from smoking marijuana. However, vapourising tobacco weed would still expose you to the other nasty things in it, such as arsenic.

Whereas, Cannabis use seems to have become quite socially acceptable, with many people quite happily admitting that they use it without any stigma attached. Perhaps the world should have a think about the pressures of modern life in the 21C, and investigate why so many people feel the need to constantly de-stress, using either Cannabis or alcohol to achieve that.

People have always done so. Some people need to do so much more than others. Me, I have no particular need to partake of any drug, be it alcohol or anything. I do sometimes because the odd social drink can be pleasant. However, there are some who need marijuana to reduce their anxiety levels down to what we could call normal. People who suffer PTSD might fall under this category.

As a social drug it is far better than alcohol for reasons I think Clyde has already pointed out. You are very unlikely to go home and beat your wife after a night out smoking weed. As a pain reliever it has far less side effects and is far less addictive than many over the counter pain relief medications. It is safer to have in your home than aspirin or paracetamol (acetaminophen). It is an excellent aid for people with insomnia as it is possible to get indica strains rather than sativa strains from the medical dispensary.

---

Reality Internet Personality

It is difficult to discuss cannabis use with someone who has never tried it, didn't like it, or is subject to mandatory testing.
Cannabis is not like alcohol, it enhances sensory perception, not dull it, yet does share some of the relaxation benefits of alcohol.
Vaporizing, edibles, or combustion are the usual routes of delivery.
Too high a dose may cause sensory overload in a user causing anxiety,fear, and panic, which is why dose and setting are important for newbies.
In edible form Arizona has "Cookies for Rookies" encouraging small doses for the inexperienced.

I'm not trying to glorify drug use but rather give a reason why dope-heads defend cannabis on the basis of safety. It is safer than alcohol, and extolling the qualitative difference of experience really would sound like glorification.

Wouldn't that be Colorado, or did Arizona just legalize it too?

You are correct. The cookies thing was related to me, but to be honest i'm not really up on state specific regulation of cannabis.

Well, in a nutshell:

Marijuana is illegal under US Federal law.

2 States (Washington and Colorado) have 'legalized' it. That is to say they have removed their own STATE laws.

Currently, the Federal Government is not doing much in the way of enforcement of the Federal laws against marijuana in those states, but sooner or later they will have to... Equal protection under the law clause of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, among others. It is still criminal, after all, under Federal law and said law is still vigorously enforced in the other 48 States.

My own opinion is that they are waiting until after the 2014 elections in about a month to decide which way they want to go. It is going to be interesting political theater.

Cannabis use is criminal.

Not where I live, you are guilty of making a sweeping over generalization.

---

It is going to be interesting political theater.

I think you are right. The way that I see it is that Cannabis may be illegal, n many places, but it has become socially acceptable to very large numbers of people. When that happens you will have a popular backlash against what some will see as a form of victimisation.

It has become very socially acceptable already. Remember, 2 of the last 3 US Presidents have publicly admitted using it (Clinton and Obama) and the 3rd almost certainly did (Bush the Younger -- he ducked his National Guard physical, after all. Rumor at the time was they were going to start testing the pilots for alcohol and drugs.)

I guess it's a good thing i fly the flag of Uruguay.
It's all perfectly legal, and it's all good.

LOL:)

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

Cannabis use is criminal.

Not where I live, you are guilty of making a sweeping over generalization.

...and here the mounties aren't allowed to smoke it while in uniform.

Mountie says he has 'legal right' to smoke medical marijuana in uniform

---

Reality Internet Personality