Vincent Browne - its no harm to smoke marijuana

Dundalk Daily

I find it strange that Vincent Browne in his SBP column today claims that smoking marijuana wont do you any harm. He also claims that to legalise the drug would be doing the sensible thing and this would somehow break the link between drugs and crime and gangland killings :

So correct me if Im wrong but what VB is saying here is that:

1. Smoking (even setting aside what you are smoking) wont do you any harm.

2. Legalise maraijuana and we will have no more gangland killings.


Link added when they decide to update the website.

mike65

I don't have a problem with Browne speaking his brain, no-one should stiffle debate on such a matter regardless of whether he is right or wrong.

Mike.

Dundalk Daily

Mike there is no debate when it comes to the health issues associated with smoking.

Dundalk Daily

Still no link available. I ve just contacted the SBP (TCM) and they were not even aware that they hadnt updated their website. :eek:

Dundalk Daily

Looks like I woke them up. The site has been updated and they called me back to thank me for bringing it to their attention.

Link added to original post.

flogen

They have a tendancy to not update their site until Monday every now and again.

And yes there is a debate when it comes to the effects of smoking; people don't need evidence to have a point of view (case-in-point, creationism v. evolution).

I can see Browne's point on the decriminalisation of certain drugs, but that's not to say that I agree with him. If you follow the rationale that decriminalising cannabis will help stop crime, you have to apply the same logic to harder drugs too, which he doesn't seem to be willing to do.
I think he is wrong to suggest it's doing him no harm... the point he seems to be getting at (badly) is that he can make a mature decision and find that he is willing to accept the consequences of his actions and that no-one else should be allowed to block that... I agree with that point of view, but I don't see the potential for a criminal charge being a consequence that needs to be removed from certain drug types.
I don't see him suggesting that the decriminalisation of a or any drug would end crime, he's just putting it forward as one potential weapon in the wider battle.

DublinWriter

Dundalk Daily wrote:

Mike there is no debate when it comes to the health issues associated with smoking.

Dundalk Daily - I do suggest you take a look around you in the world in which (I hope we both) live.

People are automatically selective when they invoke the 'Don't do drugs, drugs are bad, m'kay?" argument. If you want to ban drugs, ban all the legal tax-gathering ones too from caffine to alcohol.

Firstly, we have the Mafia solely because of the American prohibition on alcohol in the 1920's.

I take a look at this work-a-day country we live in and see a massive problems with alcohol and to a lesser extent GP's prescribing SSRIs like Smarties.

Yet we get all in a tiss about stuff that grows out of the ground. Why? Because it's an easy target and there are no mega-corporations around to protect their interests.

If you don't believe me, just look at the way the drinks industry cacked itself in the early-mid 1990's when they successfully lobbied (i.e. greased) the UK Tory party to ban warehouse raves.

The debate should be about personal choice and responsibility rather than public paranoia and miseducation.

monument

It’s obviously not a new idea, two writers that have stuck in my mind as having suggested this before are Henry McDonald (the Observer), and Ian O'Doherty (the Indo).

The general idea is steeped in logic. Simply put, prohibition doesn’t work.

Meanwhile, the so-called ‘war on drugs’ is a failure and a waste of money. The current state reaction (both moral and practice) to drugs is similar to that of the US Federal government’s reaction in the earlier stages of alcohol prohibition - we know best, we’ll tackle crime, and denial of the realities.

Dundalk Daily wrote:

and this would somehow break the link between drugs and crime and gangland killings :

(bold added)

And this was the kind of thinking that accrued in the mind of hangers on, even when it was clear that alcohol prohibition had failed.

If you what proof that the political arguments on drugs in Ireland are based on moral outcries rather then fact, you just have to look at the 'magic' mushroom ban – no political party could back up the claims that the mushroom were dangerous…

http://www.blurredkeys.com/2006/02/irish_political.html

Vincent Browne wrote:

Why should I be made a criminal for smoking a few marijuana joints? I am doing no harm to myself and certainly no harm to anybody else.

I’m unsure if Browne was actually including of harm in relation to health – yes, I’m saying he may have ignored or forgotten about such. It may be more likely he was talking along the lines that the odd joint wont effect most people’s life, it won’t as some people might have you believe destroy ever user’s life.

flogen wrote:

I don't see him suggesting that the decriminalisation of a or any drug would end crime, he's just putting it forward as one potential weapon in the wider battle.

I think is saying it wound in effect harm the use of drugs as product for criminals, and if I can remember, both Henry McDonald and Ian O'Doherty did, and I would also subscribe to that notion, at least in part.

Browne still has a point, even of is unwilling to accept harder drugs into the equation of legislation. Take the crimination of lighter drugs, firstly marijuana is sociably acceptable for a large proportion of the population, and secondly an apparently (at least relatively) harmless variety of mushroom is banned with no scientific backing – this all makes the case for not doing harder drugs weaker.

And I don’t have any self-interest in saying these things, alcohol is my one and only drug of choice.

Dundalk Daily

Flogen you say that there is a debate around the effects of smoking if so what is it ?

flogen

Dundalk Daily wrote:

Flogen you say that there is a debate around the effects of smoking if so what is it ?

The exact effect and level of damage it does, mainly. Many would say the effect of smoking is over-played or overestimated (like it's some kind of conspiracy, almost)
Just like people will say there is no solid proof that passive smoking does damage, some will say smoking isn't as bad as it's made out to be (they're usually speaking from a vested interest).
I know they're usually talking crap, and they often use technicalities (it's not the nicotine that does damage, it's the tar - IMO breathing in smoke of any description is bad for you) but there are people who will argue the damage smoking does.

An example:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article1090210.ece

Dundalk Daily

Yes of course everyone has a different opinion on the effects of smoking but to say that "I am doing no harm to myself" as VB did is quite ridiculous.

flogen

Dundalk Daily wrote:

Yes of course everyone has a different opinion on the effects of smoking

That's a bit different to there being no debate on the health issues of smoking, but anyway

but to say that "I am doing no harm to myself" as VB did is quite ridiculous.

It does seem a bit odd; I'm assuming his point was that he is aware of any harm it may do and accepts that; but if that is the case he didn't clarify that stance very well.

Dundalk Daily

Theres no debating the fact that smoking causes harm, the extent of that harm on ones health is a totally seperate matter.

flogen

Dundalk Daily wrote:

Theres no debating the fact that smoking causes harm, the extent of that harm on ones health is a totally seperate matter.

You say that as if I or someone else in this thread is disagreeing with you... Your original comment is where the disagreement came in and you've now clarified that.

I'm sure there's someone out there that would argue that smoking is good for you, but just because they say it doesn't mean it should be given much time; I agree that Browne was wrong to say smoking doesn't do him any harm, and as I've said I assume he meant something different (but failed to clarify well enough)

chekov

As it happens, there is very little evidence that smoking marijuana has any negative health risks. "The largest ever study of whether cannabis causes lung cancer reported its findings recently, to total UK media silence. Lifelong cannabis users, who had smoked more than 22,000 joints, showed no greater risk of cancer than people who had never smoked cannabis" source. A very counterintuitive result - but reality is sometimes like that which is why scientific studies are more useful than common sense for estabilishing causation in areas that are mired in myth and prejudice.

The only other marijuana-health link that is widely claimed is the effects on mental health. In particular, a study last year found a strong correlation between marijuana usage and schizophrenia amongst certain immigrant populations in the UK. However, since marijuana can be viewed as a form of 'self-medication' for people with psychological problems - and is often used as such - it is very difficult to establish any causal link, that would require much more detailed studies.

Therefore, if you were being honest and precise, you would say that the evidence suggests that there may be some risks to mental health, but that this is only a conjecture and there is no evidence of any other health risks.

mike65

I think the main health risk from Cannabis is bullets these days.

Mike.

The_Scary_Man

chekov wrote:

As it happens, there is very little evidence that smoking marijuana has any negative health risks. "The largest ever study of whether cannabis causes lung cancer reported its findings recently, to total UK media silence. Lifelong cannabis users, who had smoked more than 22,000 joints, showed no greater risk of cancer than people who had never smoked cannabis" source. A very counterintuitive result - but reality is sometimes like that which is why scientific studies are more useful than common sense for estabilishing causation in areas that are mired in myth and prejudice.

Counterintuitive perhaps but there is now thought to be a link between high stress levels and the onset of cancers. Its possible that the cannabis smokers were less likely to develop lung cancer because they were so chilled out. :eek: