Considering other drugs such as alchohol and cigarettes, which have shown to be more addictive and harmful than marijuana, why should marijuana remain illegal?
Note: I am not formally educated in any aspect of medical biology. Therefore, I will say right now that my opening post could be very wrong, and hopefully the medical professionals on this forum will correct it. This is, however, the understanding I have gleaned from my research.
Posts: 515 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I seem to recall some study done as part of research on "medical marijuana" to see if it caused more harm than it would be helping. The doctor's concluded something along the lines the only serious health issues it posed were due to smoking it, lung issues, etc. If it was ingested it would meet the requirements for prescription drugs, and possibly even over-the-counter drugs.
This was several years ago, so I'm going off memory and don't have a link. Sorry.
posted
Well, I lean toward the legalizing camp, but tell me if any of the following impression is incorrect (since I have never done marijuana). I am under the impression, from popular culture at least, that while marijuana is less addictive or harmful than legal drugs, it impairs you more while you are high, and it takes far less "quantity" (insofar as this is a meaningful term when comparing something smoked to something drunk) to reach that level of impairment. Since impaired people are wont to do dangerous things, this might be an argument against legalizing marijuana.
-o-
When the doctors check in, I would be curious to know more about medical marijuana. I have heard great claims about its effectiveness in dealing with glaucoma and the symptoms of AIDS, but I have read other sources saying that these are lies. Who is right?
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree it should be legal, even though I've never used it and don't have a particular desire to use it.
I think if most people knew how many highschoolers actually smoke pot, they would be shocked. And then in college it just gets worse. I have no data to support this, only my own experiences. It's too far gone for anything reasonable to stop it.
I believe the societal price of the war on pot is far higher than the societal price of legalizing marijuana.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
First off, I am for legalization (and taxation) of this reletively harmless substance.
However, when I used, long ago, I had more respiratory problems. I am asthmatic, aggravated by allergies. When I stopped smoking I noticed a marked improvement in respiration, over the course of months. So, I continued by cutting out my "weekend smoking" as well a year or so later.
It's like night and day. I have no doubt of the problems caused by the act of smoking. For me, that seems to be pot's downfall.
Posts: 2506 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think if most people knew how many highschoolers actually smoke pot, they would be shocked. And then in college it just gets worse. I have no data to support this, only my own experiences. It's too far gone for anything reasonable to stop it.
You know, I don't find the fact that a lot of people do something to be a compelling argument in favor of its legalization.
Can you elaborate on what you believe to be the societal price of the War on Marijuana? Is there in fact a "War on Marijuana" or is it the whole War on Drugs you are commenting on? How do you feel about marijuana use being legalized but not other drug use? Would the War on Drugs have a lower "price" if this were to happen?
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, I think you guys are confusing the facts.
First off, marijuana is only illegal in it's smoked form. Which should remain illegal.
However, the FDA is currentlyconducting research on medications derived from marijuana that have less of a negative impact than morphine while doing more pain-control.
I need to do more research on the subject. So don't go forming a cult over what you've read here so far.
Posts: 1660 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
scottneb, could you elaborate on the meaning of ? Do you disagree with those who say cigarettes and alcohol, which are legal, are more harmful?
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
[quote="Daniel Brookoff, M.D., Ph.D." ]A class of drugs derived from marijuana called the cannabinoids has also been shown to have some anti-nausea effects, but this activity is no greater than that of third-choice drugs. Cannabinoids also cause more side effects than the other anti-nausea drugs (sedation, dizziness, low blood pressure, and an unpleasant sensation called dysphoria). A purified form of the cannabinoid Delta-9 THC has been available on the American market for eight years under the brand name Marinol. Despite its availability it has found limited use, because it generally doesn't work. If you look at the advertisements for Marinol placed in the medical journals by its manufacturer (Roxane Laboratories), it is touted as "more effective than Compazine," which is a third-choice medication for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting[/quote]
Man! I can never do quotes right! Posts: 1660 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not completely up on the subject. It verywell could be legal in other forms. It was just a good arguement to grab attention while I pulled some research. :wink:
eslaine, show me some good research showing marijuana isn't harmful and I'll believe you.
Posts: 1660 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Icarus, a date for sure! (although Punwit has not yet responded, and I do have a date with Ela and Megan, but the more the merrier!)
Ok, Scott. Lots of people ingest illegal, smokable marijuana, that is what I was trying to distinguish.
I know a lot of people who smoke, who use it as an antidepressant. They may not admit this, but their spouses do!
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I interpreted his use of the word "relatively" to mean specifically by comparison to other drugs that were legal. And I don't feel like getting all Googly, but I thought it was a relatively accepted truism that cigarettes, in particular were more harmful.
-o-
Or could this be that they are only more harmful because people who smoke cigarettes smoke them in great quantities, while people who smoke marijuana (or cigars) smoke muh more infrequently?
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I used to be on the anti-legalization side of things up until about a year ago. Not really a reason as to why I changed my mind about it, I guess I just thought about it some more and came to a different conclusion.
I'd reluctantly say it should be legal but I still have my doubts as to the after-effects it may bring.
The main thing on my mind about these sorts of issues is where to draw the line. I mean people are already using the whole "Well, cigarettes and alcohol are legal so why not marijuana?"
Not to say it's a bad argument, I'm simply thinking about the ramifications of that sort of thinking. "Well, marijuana, cigarettes, and alcohol are legal, why not [insert new substance here]?"
Not very appealing to me.
Posts: 459 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, I'm not going back to choking. But, smoking effects aside, THC is produced by your own body.
Posts: 2506 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, Ic. The danger of smoking marijuana is in the smoking, mostly. It is not pysically addictive, like nicotine or alcohol, but it is psychologically adictive. The question then becomes, well, isn't an addiction an addiction? THC stays in the sytem fo a while, I think three months. Basically, it is not that i would promote marijuana use, just put it up there against alcohol and say: it really isn't as bad as alcohol, so either legalize marijuana or illegalize alcohol.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
On the other hand, Liz, I can have a drink without getting high. Can you say the same about a joint?
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Be assured, I have absolutely no problem with an approved drug derived from marijuana. I hit the wall when we start talking about a sweeping legalization of smoked pot.
Posts: 1660 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, tar, etc. But think of the additives to tobacco that are thrown in to make it burn evenly and deliver that highly addictive drug nicotine.
Having kicked both, THC was a breeze compared to the ten ton weight of nicotine.
Posts: 2506 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, no, Ic, one could not say that. However, impairment is impairment. I could have one drink at a restaurant and be fine. I could have three martinis and not be fine. If marijuana were legalized, it would have to be assumed that a person did not leave their home or another person's home, if they were impaired.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You would also have to determine what TYPE of marijuana was legal and illegal. If we legalize marijuana with x amount of THC, will people still illegally buy the high grade forms of it? Should we legalize all forms not matter how potent? Where is the line?
quote:You know, I don't find the fact that a lot of people do something to be a compelling argument in favor of its legalization.
When the goal of prohibition is to stop the substance from being used, and that goal is not being met at all, I don't see why you'd keep using the same method.
quote: Can you elaborate on what you believe to be the societal price of the War on Marijuana? Is there in fact a "War on Marijuana" or is it the whole War on Drugs you are commenting on? How do you feel about marijuana use being legalized but not other drug use? Would the War on Drugs have a lower "price" if this were to happen?
I'm sure none of these arguments are new, but here I go anyways:
I suppose I believe that the "War on Marijuana" is one aspect of the War on Drugs. I think the societal cost has many factors. One is the actual monetary costs. In 2003, the US Government spent 19 billion on the War on Drugs. State and local governments spent even more. It's hard to estimate exactly how much of that was specifically for marijuana. However, marijuana is the most used illegal drug in the county, so it seems reasonable that it was a lot of it. Given the fact that if it was legalized it could be taxed, prohibition is costing the US billions of dollars every year.
Another big problem I have is the amount of police resources that are devoted to stopping pot. I know my police station has a drug division (don't know the actual title). In high school, my goverment class actually had a police officer tell us that he believed in legalization of pot and listed how many police resources it used up. I wish I'd kept my notes from that.
How do I feel about all drugs? Personally, I don't care if somebody wants to shoot up on heroine or snort cocaine. It doesn't hurt me. But I don't expect to ever convince prohibitionists of that.
I don't understand why an activity that harms no one but yourself should be illegal. People may claim that pot inherently creates damage to their families and society, etc. I don't believe this. I know SO many people who smoke pot and live completely productive lives. Admittedly, they're not usually that ambitious, but they're still contributing members of society.
One legitimate fear in my mind is that there would be more car accidents from it. While driving intoxicated would clearly be illegal, it would still happen. But people, even innocent people, die in the drug trade. So it's trading one con for another.
If marijuana were legalized, yes, more people would use it. Do I think that's so horrible? No, not really.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
scottneb, I think that Marinol is only one of the substances in marijuana. When you do find that Popular Science article, check out what they say about Sativex. Apparently it contains all of the compounds in marijuana. I'll be interested to see whether this is more effective than Marinol.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:In 2003, the US Government spent 19 billion on the War on Drugs. State and local governments spent even more. It's hard to estimate exactly how much of that was specifically for marijuana. However, marijuana is the most used illegal drug in the county, so it seems reasonable that it was a lot of it.
Actually, I don't think this necessarily follows.
I'm seeing more anti-pot commercials these days, but when I was in high school, the main focus of the anti-drug education/posters/propaganda I saw seemed to be cocaine.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I just skimmed through it. Man, this is the second time there was a relevant story in PopSci that I couldn't get to. I feel so helpless.
*dons helmet, elbow pads, knee pads, wrist guards, boots, shoulder pads, reflective vest, goggles, and affixes a freakishly tall orange flag to the back of eslaine's bike*
Posts: 1660 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: I'm seeing more anti-pot commercials these days, but when I was in high school, the main focus of the anti-drug education/posters/propaganda I saw seemed to be cocaine.
When did you go to high school? During my education (class of 2003), the emphasis was definately on pot.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
From what I understand, studies have shown that marijuana is not chemically addictive -- caffeine, nicotine, and alcohol (for instance) are. It is mentally addictive. This means that you want it because you enjoy it, and not because your body physically cannot operate properly without it. This is the same type of addiction as is found in people who are 'addicted' to running or working out, for example.
Is this incorrect?
I would suggest sweeping legalization, but with the same laws applied as are applied to alcohol and cigarettes: don't do them in non-smoking areas, and you are responsible for what you do while you're under the influence.
quote:On the other hand, Liz, I can have a drink without getting high. Can you say the same about a joint?
I've never personally done it, but my friends who do never get high off of one bowl. One bowl is just relaxing, it takes two or three for them to get high.
Posts: 515 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're partly right HRE. You are correct in saying that working-out and working can be addictive. You're wrong in that it is in fact "chemically" addictive. Even if a substance isn't addictive by it's own chemical structure, your body will still develope a chemical dependance on it. Endorphines are a good for instance to prove this.
Posts: 1660 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
