Legalised marijuana

[peadar1987]

A friend of mine raised the point the other day that, aside from all other arguments about harm, crime, damned annoying stoners and so on, legalised weed makes a huge amount of money, and with the state struggling to pay for essential services, healthcare and education, even if the worst is true about weed, it is probably the lesser of two evils.

That said, I can't ever see it being legalised in Ireland. At least, not in the next few decades. It'll be a toss-up between it and gay marriage to see which one's opponents die away first!

[DannyInvincible]

I have no vested interest in the weed-legalisation debate either way, but if someone wishes to "harm" themselves, and so long as their behaviour isn't causing unreasonable social harm or harm to another person, that should be entirely their own business. Lots of humans cause harm to themselves legally on a daily basis by smoking, drinking and eating unhealthy foods, amongst other things. Tax legal marijuana, like tobacco products, so users can cover the health risks and public education costs themselves.

What are the crime arguments against legalisation of weed exactly? It's only a crime because the law says it is. If it was legalised, possession would no longer be a crime, naturally, so related crime-rates would fall, presumably. Does possession and use alone (ignoring its current legal status) cause or lead do wider criminal activity or social harm in a sense that ought justify its illegal status? Legalisation would also cut out the murky and unsavoury underworld through which the trade is currently operated.

[SkStu]

That alcohol is considered a safe, taxable product while weed isn't is mind-boggling to me.

I believe that states of Colorado and Washington have legalized in the last round of recent elections/votes in the USA (and not just for medicinal purposes either). The pro-legalisation movement has cited the reduction in illegal trade/crime wars and the profitability of it as a regulated product as reasons for. No brainer decision for me. It's considered inevitable that federal laws will be adjusted soon.

From an Ireland perspective, it doesn't have to be a huge deal and should be a subject for mature debate and absence of hyperbole...

[Lionel Ritchie]

Danny pretty much sums up my feelings. Do as much of you like of that which harms no one else.

Legalisation would demistify it for a large constituency of the young, take the rarity and danger of supply (where rarity exists) out of it which brings the price down and takes the scobes out of the industry.

The illegality, the illicitness is what largely creates the value of the product and the wealth that goes with it. It is the head of the beast. Cut off the head and the body will die.

[DannyInvincible]

That alcohol is considered a safe, taxable product while weed isn't is mind-boggling to me.

The alcohol industry has a considerable degree of influence as a collective lobby group and they use this influence to shape drug policy. Not sure of their relationship with marijuana and whether they would view its legalisation as a serious commercial threat, but I do know they've pumped an awful lot of money into encouraging hostile public policy on and a warped public view of MDMA (ecstasy) here in the UK as increasing recreational use of the drug first began posing a serious threat to alcohol sales and industry profits in the late '80s/early '90s, despite MDMA being a much less socially and physically harmful drug than alcohol.

http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/original-size/20101106_WOC504_0.gif

The alcohol industry's reaction to the death of Leah Betts in 1995 was quite interesting. Essentially, they shamelessly used her death as a marketing tool to smear ecstasy and boost alcohol sales. More on it and the general alcohol industry-MDMA conflict here, if interested: http://www.ecstasy.org/info/jim.html

The thoughts and findings of Professor David Nutt also make for interesting reading. He was once the UK's chief drug advisor but was dismissed from his position in 2009 after being critical of the government's classification of illegal substances and their potential for inflicting harm.


From an Ireland perspective, it doesn't have to be a huge deal and should be a subject for mature debate and absence of hyperbole...

It does irritate me slightly that debates like this, as well as discussions in relation to the possible extension of licensing hours and the like, are dismissed as frivolous or lacking in enough seriousness to merit action, if not warped to the point of meaninglessness by hyperbole and moral panic, as you mention. Advocates of legalisation or extension are usually dismissed as being hippy potheads or too keen on the excesses in life. People's leisure and recreational time is worth taking more seriously. What do we work for, after all?

[SkStu]

Agree with all youve said Danny - I've seen that graph or similar before and the same thing hits me is that tobacco is so far down. I'd like to know more about their methodology and definitions before I'd place a whole load of faith in it, even though I agree with it for the most part from an anecdotal perspective.

The one thing I did misread was your last line... "people's leisure and recreational time is worth toking more seriously."

[DannyInvincible]

Agree with all youve said Danny - I've seen that graph or similar before and the same thing hits me is that tobacco is so far down. I'd like to know more about their methodology and definitions before I'd place a whole load of faith in it, even though I agree with it for the most part from an anecdotal perspective.

Not a huge deal of extra info, but a bit more on those findings here: http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/11/drugs_cause_most_harm

As it says, the research was carried out by David Nutt. He has blogs here with a bit more reading: http://profdavidnutt.wordpress.com/ and http://drugscience.org.uk/

At least we agree on something of late though, but do be careful; Nutt was dismissed by the British government in 2009 as an ill-informed loudmouth. :p

[nigel-harps1954]

Hold on a minute....they're actually claiming that Cannabis is physically worse for you than Ecstacy? That's where I'll draw the line.

The legislation and legalisation should be indeed be discussed in a mature debate at higher levels. The sheer amounts of money the country could earn from such a move, not only by the people in the country alone, but from increased tourism, is mind-boggling.

I read recently that the country would stand to make something around 200 million euro a year from correctly legislating and legalising proper usage of cannabis, which is an outrageous sum of essentially free money.

[passinginterest]

Did anyone watch that Drugs Live programme on Channel 4? Pure MDMA in controlled doses seems to be very, very safe. I only caught bits of the programme but the anti-leagalisation of drugs campaigners seemed to be taking an absolute pasting. Their arguments were being systematically taken apart and there was evidence presented that much of the danger of drugs like Ecstacy is down to the crap it gets mixed with by the criminal distributers. They surveyed pills from a major festival and many of the so called E's had no MDMA whatsoever.

I'm defnintely inclined to come down on the legalisation and active control of cannabis and many other recreational drugs, I really don't see them as any more of a danger to society than alcohol.

[DannyInvincible]

Hold on a minute....they're actually claiming that Cannabis is physically worse for you than Ecstacy? That's where I'll draw the line.

Why so?

[nigel-harps1954]

Why so?

Ecstacy screws with your brain, increases your serotonin levels significantly which can technically burn out your brain and cause severe depression.

[DannyInvincible]

Ecstacy screws with your brain, increases your serotonin levels significantly which can technically burn out your brain and cause severe depression.

What do you mean by "burn out your brain" exactly? That's typical of the hyperbole that surrounds discussions like these. MDMA provokes the release of increased levels of serotonin in the brain after ingestion, which, in the vast majority of instances, tends to lead to heightened sensations of pleasure and positive feeling, but I don't think there's any evidence to suggest it "burns out your brain". The inevitable consequence of a short high lasting a matter of hours that exhausts the body of its serotonin stock is a subsequent come-down, but serotonin levels naturally build up again to usual levels if given sufficient recovery-time. Long-term abuse or misuse could lead to depression, naturally, due to enduring lower serotonin levels and a disillusionment with being unable to reach the highs that the user once enjoyed. Educated use shouldn't pose significant problems, however.

[nigel-harps1954]

Naturally with anything I suppose that educated use shouldn't do you any harm.

I won't claim to be the most hugely educated person on this subject, but I just find it ridiculously hard to believe that Cannabis is any worse for you than Ecstacy.

[SkStu]

very different drugs though with different side effects though. Anything that alters your mental state or nervous system or hormone balance will carry side effects that are harmful in different ways.

Depends on your own subjective definition of harm. My crumbling teeth :) are a giveaway of a couple of years of my life but equally, when i was smoking weed/hash regularly i had other issues that led to me quitting it as an everyday pastime. At this stage I cant remember the last time i even had a toke. I havent looked at a pill in close to ten years. As i said, everything in that list carries harm or the potential for it, the degree of that harm is somewhat subjective.

[strangeirish]

Dude!...dude...DUDES...Duuuude!

[geysir]

Cannabis is a growth industry.