Decriminalisation of marijuana

[BeNZene]

If I were King, you would have all substances assessed based on medical evidence (which need not be definitive proof - but it must be credible medical evidence) and categorised appropriately.  It would look something like this (although the place of individual substances is just based on my views, and as King I would take the wise counsel of scientists and medical professionals):
 
- Unregulated (no evidence of harm, just usual food labeling rules if in food or beverage)
- Regulated but untaxed (for drugs / non-prescription medicines / food ingredients that are not harmful to the general population when used as intended, but need dosage restrictions & some warning labeling eg caffeine, artificial sugars)
- Regulated and controlled (prescription medicines which need a physician to ensure they are properly used)
- Regulated but taxed (harms are moderate or less, such that personal choice & medical treatment are more appropriate eg cannabis, tobbacco, alcohol, possibly e & most party drugs)
- Criminalised (drugs which are highly addictive and/or very harmful to users and/or can cause major harm to others eg heroin, methamphetamine, possibly cocaine, GHB because of it's date rape use)


But I'm not King. So in the meantime:
- Cannabis isn't harmful enough to justify the status quo.  
- Decriminalisation is better, basically you only chase commercial drug dealers and users can grow/possess their own up to a limit (say 2 plants & 50g).
- It's still a political compromise not good evidence-based policy.  But we have to live with that sometimes.

EDIT: Also, re the UN treaty, the Netherlands and Australia are parties so there is definitely scope to be an international-law-abiding-citizen and do something about drug reform.

[Spork]

Another problem is that we can talk all we want, but especially for Australia and quite likely for NZ, government is way too conservative and will not change the laws. It's shit, but it's true.

[kilabee]

Another problem is that we can talk all we want, but especially for Australia and quite likely for NZ, government is way too conservative and will not change the laws. It's shit, but it's true.

True.Look at what happened to Don Brash when he raised the issue.

[420fairy]

watch a documentary called What if Cannabis cured cancer then discuss..

not made by stoners 25 year long study by top medical professors from various parts of the world.

[Pyromanik]

Decrim not leagz.
Tax it.
Tax also from it's income.

max. 2 plants.



Cuntry not so fucked in depression.

True.Look at what happened to Don Brash when he raised the issue.

Yeh, but isn't he an ACT member? Like, one of the most conservitive parties ever?
Of course that shit made waves.

Don knows what's good for the country's bank balance (see above). On other things... well... yeah.

[9unk]

I've read a bit of literature on it. I still feel like I need to read more on it.

In regards to a lot of those using the fact alcohol is legal and its worse. Imo you're argument is flawed. I don't disagree that alcohol is terrible but using it as a reason to legalise/decriminalise something is a bit dumb...

[toofast]

What exactly is the difference between decrim and legalizing?

[Retardobot]

Pretty sure there's a Streets song for every topic.

[BeNZene]

What exactly is the difference between decrim and legalizing?

Decriminalising would make possession a bit like no wearing a seatbelt - a small infringement offence (say $100 fine), with no conviction.  Not legal, but not a crime either.

Legalising would make it like tobacco or alcohol or caffeine.

[dirtyape]

This might be interesting to make some comparisons: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_cannabis_by_country

Fairy, I've been meaning to watch that doco and will do before I enter discussion. An objective opinion is required.

[Black Heart]

Decriminalize not legalize.

There's a major moral objection to the state being involved in the drug business any way, which it would be if you could sell it.

It's one of the main reasons that the tobacco business is so disgusting.


Grow your own if you're that keen.

is there? pharmacy drugs make up a big part of the illegal scene. Doesn't the government have a 2020? goal of banning tobacco, doesn't removing one substance, while promoting another with similar risk factors to health make the govt look pretty silly? Yeayea freedom of choice for the individual blah blah, wheres your freedom when cigarettes could be sold for 50 cents tax free, and the 'evil tobacco' companies would make the same profits. The govt takes the $12 or so, whose really evil here ?

[Emrico1]

is there? pharmacy drugs make up a big part of the illegal scene. Doesn't the government have a 2020? goal of banning tobacco, doesn't removing one substance, while promoting another with similar risk factors to health make the govt look pretty silly? Yeayea freedom of choice for the individual blah blah, wheres your freedom when cigarettes could be sold for 50 cents tax free, and the 'evil tobacco' companies would make the same profits. The govt takes the $12 or so, whose really evil here ?

So right.
The more you look at drug prohibition the more moral holes you find.

[Zarkov]

Cigarettes are pretty cheap in China, or are on the face of it.

Only now after 20 years of cheap tobacco, are lung cancer rates going through the roof.

Tobacco is such an expensive drug in so many ways that trying to justify it's legality is pretty dumb.

It's out on it's own in terms of the health downside.



The trouble with all forms of recreational drugs, is that's not how a lot of people use them.

I've worked in the transport industry all my life and they're a pain in the arse really.

[Xenolightning]

I've worked in the transport industry all my life

Drug trafficker Zarkov?

[kilabee]

The trouble with all forms of recreational drugs, is that's not how a lot of people use them.

We only have to look at our use of alcohol to know that legalising pot would add to social problems of our youth. Decriminalise and license for your own use over twenty years of age and bump up the sentences for those dealing to minors might be worth some thought.

[Black Heart]

Cigarettes are pretty cheap in China, or are on the face of it.

Only now after 20 years of cheap tobacco, are lung cancer rates going through the roof.

Tobacco is such an expensive drug in so many ways that trying to justify it's legality is pretty dumb.

It's out on it's own in terms of the health downside.



The trouble with all forms of recreational drugs, is that's not how a lot of people use them.

I've worked in the transport industry all my life and they're a pain in the arse really.

I'm not trying to justify tobacco. I'm saying working towards a ban of tobacco, while lessening the restrictions of marijuana that potentially has the same health risks for cancer, and more for mental health (linked to paranoid schizophrenia) is insanity. At least the tobacco taxes pay the health bills they incur.

[dirtyape]

I'm not trying to justify tobacco. I'm saying working towards a ban of tobacco, while lessening the restrictions of marijuana that potentially has the same health risks for cancer, and more for mental health (linked to paranoid schizophrenia) is insanity. At least the tobacco taxes pay the health bills they incur.

It can be eaten. It is THC itself which is illegal. Paranoid schizophrenia is a problem. Excessive alcohol use is linked to liver failure. Any excessive use of an intoxicant will have a detrimental effect. Excessive use of butter will kill more people than marijuana. Figures are needed.



Unrelated: Hitler was addicted to amphetamines, they were used widely in WW2.

[mattnz]

The relationship between cannabis and schizophrenia is quite complex, and a similar effect exists for both alcohol and nicotine.

[dirtyape]

It doesn't produce physical dependency, and it doesn't produce overdose deaths. But lets face facts here. The prohibition has failed. It costs a lot of money and that is essentially money wasted. Instead of spending that money on enforcing the prohibition, that money could be spent on the management of the social issues that arise due to marijuana use. And that use will continue regardless of whether it is prohibited or not.

Are the legal side effects more harmful than the drug itself?

[mattnz]

In 2006, about 1% of cannabis users were prosecuted for their use. So depends on how unlucky you are.

[Black Heart]

Police could just stop ? Despite the argument the police can't pick and choose what laws to enforce, when was the last time you saw them stop a cyclist without a helmet? fine someone for littering? police could easily tone down their 'proactive' searching in forests by helicopter, etc. and just react when given information, or having stopped suspicious vehicles/individuals. Changing the law to be more lenient, with the justification of "other substances are worse social problems" isn't really that smart. Hey we have all these problems, lets just add one and see what happens. :/

[mattnz]

Errr, so it's better to have the lawmaking in the hands of police?

[Oddball]

There are quite a few prisoners in jail who used marijuana to control their anger issues and no longer have access to it, regular usage of marijuana can completely alleviate a lot of these issues.

When a psychiatrist (or a GP, god forbid, long story...) prescribes an anti-psychotic to a patient there are known side effects that can range from mild restlessness, to tardive dyskinesia (do.not.want.) or even temporary / permanent brain damage. The medication is repetitively assessed regularly during the first initial period for warning signs of side effects (if they havent happened already) and then a decision is made by the patient and involving the doctor, as to whether the illness that is treated is worse than the side effects of the medication, or if the side effects are worse, and if no alternatives exist or are preferable, whether to continue on the medication or not.

I don't see why marijuana should be treated any differently - it has side effects just like a lot of medication, and in many many many cases isn't near as damaging, particularly when compared to some of the (regularly used, even) medication out there. It lets people with anger issues live a relatively normal life, gives people a way away from depression and anxiety, and these illnesses are things I have used as examples to support what I'm saying, it doesn't end there.

I saw a documentary (or more like, walked past the TV when it was on and it caught my attention), not sure which country it was from, but marijuana was being used in large doses to treat people with fatal illness so they didn't have to suffer.

[Oddball]

The relationship between cannabis and schizophrenia is quite complex, and a similar effect exists for both alcohol and nicotine.

It's really not 'complex'. In fact it's not even completely 100% true. But it still has some merit to it.

Schizophrenia and Psychosis are illnesses that can be caused by a lot of things, they are extremely severe cases of dysfunction of the brain that results in less than desirable effects, for lack of better words. In fact the thought that something as weak as cannabis can cause either of those is... beyond absurd.

The reason I say it still has some merit to it is because said illnesses are triggered by damage to the brain, and I can see how smoking it would be destructive to someone who is being traumatized by whatever events surround them.


If that doesn't make sense, then this is what I'm ultimately saying:

Cannabis can trigger the process towards becoming schizophrenic of psychotic, or it can become involved in the degenerative process. Cannabis on it's own wont give anyone schizophrenia or psychosis. It's far, far, far, far too weak.

As for the paranoia induced by marijuana being reported to resemble psychotic symptoms... The person smoking weed would never smoke it again. Not much more to say about that.

Also here's something interesting; weed was regularly used in the 1960s and 1970s but the rate of schizophrenia flat lined, even declined a little. The media's taking made up unproven figures to back up criminalization of weed.

Double posting for unrelated topics.


TLDR: If cannabis gave you schizophrenia or psychosis you would of probably gotten it either way, but good job speeding it up - but not even that is proven. That said, it could potentially worsen it in people who already suffer from it.

[dirtyape]

From what i've recently heard is that the "link" is that those who suffer schizophrenia or precursor schizophrenia actually use cannabis as a way to manage the disorder. CBD is one of the 60 odd cannabinoids in cannabis and it has antisphychotic effects. The documentary that i just watched, What if cannabis cured cancer, posits that those who are fledgeling schizophrenics tend to use the drug as a form of self medication - whether they realise it or not - and that it actually benefits them.

The documentary was not very objective however as it mentioned none of the drugs negative side effects, and it does have some. I doubt that paranoid schizophrenia is one of them, and i'd be interested in any studies that say otherwise, if they are credible.

According to a the documentary, there is growing scientific evidence that cannabis also has an anti-cancer effect. It does this be emulating the bodies own endocannabanoids. Cannabis has about 60 cannabinoids. CBD is one of them which is a documented antipsychotic. CBC is thought to have anti-depressant effects. There is a growing list of medical research, but it is difficult to do so for several reasons.

The main one is that pharmaceutical companies do not want it, it would be their worst nightmare if people could manufacture their own medicine. Another is that it is a controlled substance. Another is that their is a paranoia within society relating to the substance stemming back to the 1930's.

I think it is hard to find objective research on this subject as most documentaries tend towards the positive. I am yet to see anything that portrays the negative aspects of the drug. We all know that it does have negative side effects. Lack of motivation and stupidity are two things that I believe the drug causes, this is through observation of a guy who was perhaps the most gifted in school to becomming someone who picks apples for a living while he was smoking. Not that there is anything wrong with that, i picked apples and loved it, but he could have been so much more. Youth are high risk. Unfortunately the media display the drug as something desirable for those starting off in life eager to experience things. That is a real problem.

Regarding cancer reducing effects, there should be statistics available in countries that will confirm if cannabis smokers have a lower rate of cancer or not. You cannot argue with statistics over a sufficient amount of time.

*additional* It is quite possibly a drug that reduces your productive potential, but at the same time it may increase you creative potential, so I guess it would come down to a sufficiently educated person to decide if it suited there choice of career. If people do not have a career, then chances are it is not going to matter.