Why Is Marijuana Illegal?

MakaDonVeli

Funniest thing about being stoned out of it in your car is that for some reason, every person that walks by or car that you see, is a cop.

Is funny tho, or when you go through a Mc' Donalds drive through only for the car to burst out laughing for no reason.

yogy

I_AmThe_Walrus wrote: »

Firstly, I want to express the fact that I am not a regular user of the drug itself, nor am I condoning it - I am just interested how society has labeled it negatively when they are unwilling to educate the ill-informed about the benefits.

1) It is not in any way, shape or form, addictive, mentally or physically.
2) It has unlimited and legitimate medical uses.
3) It is not a "gateway" drug.
4) If it was legal, organised crime would fall.
5) Government can tax it and give tourism a boost.

The funny thing about this whole farce is, Marijuana has been legal in the Netherlands since the 30's and according to the consumption stats, the Dutch use the recreational drug the least. Not one recorded fatality has occurred from the use of marijuana, yet alcohol and tobacco are severe killers and they're still available.

What are you thoughts? Should it be available for purchase, legally?

1) Marijuana has the potential to cause psychological addiction.

2) It is not legal in Holland, just decriminalised....there is a significant difference.

Chronic use can certainly lead to psychological problems for pre-disposed people but no worse than the effects of chronic alcohol abuse.

All in all alcohol is a way more damaging drug (to the person and society) than Marijuana could ever be.

It should be decriminalised a la the Dutch model but this will never happen so is there any point even discussing the issue?

tadcan

seensensee wrote: »

Hiya Buckshot, I beg to differ, apologies for appearing pedantic but what you have linked to is "why weed was made illegal" in the first place, the reason "why weed is'nt legal" is something else altogether, after all many countries have reversed the illegality in recent decades.

Emm, that was the OP's question, why is the drug illegal.

Elevator

who cares!?!

back on topic now tho it's mental that the us of a who managed to convince the world to outlaw this wonder plant is reversing their laws quick as they can

hope the planet follows suit, reckon the world would be a better place if we were allowed embrace the hemp once again

seensensee

tadcan wrote: »

Emm, that was the OP's question, why is the drug illegal.

Correct! however the OP has listed some of the reasons why the original anslinger prohibition has been overturned in some countries and so the question remains why is it illegal today when we know that the original reasons were misguided and incorrect.

Mal-Adjusted

After reading through the thread, while there have been various reasons to keep it illegal (i know it wasn't the OP's question, but that's the way the thread is going) the main argument for legalizing it is that "shur it's no worse than cigarettes and alcohol" :rolleyes: do two wrongs (three) make a right?

ScumLord

Doc wrote: »

This is somthing for personal reasons I have done quite a bit of research on I have read a lot on the subject and I do believe it is trigger for mental illness.

In a minute amount of the general population cannabis can trigger mental illness if it's taken under the right circumstances.

But are these not the kind of warnings we read about in the side effects for common legal drugs prescribed to us by our doctors also?

I've been smoking for a bit more than ten years and know smokers that have smoked for longer. Any person that both drinks and smokes will tell you drink is by far and away the more harmful drug in every possible way.

Odysseus

ScumLord wrote: »

In a minute amount of the general population cannabis can trigger mental illness if it's taken under the right circumstances.

But are these not the kind of warnings we read about in the side effects for common legal drugs prescribed to us by our doctors also?

I've been smoking for a bit more than ten years and know smokers that have smoked for longer. Any person that both drinks and smokes will tell you drink is by far and away the more harmful drug in every possible way.

You have a fair point, but the difference is they are controlled to various degrees and not prescribed for recretational use, in most cases;)

Strange Loop

The Americans first decreed Marijuana to be illegal and other governmens followed, seemingly declaring there is only one acceptable form of consciousness.*

What gets me is that this one acceptable form of consciousness includes dropping bombs on the heads of innocent men, women and children (in order to gain and secure mineral rights), poisoning the planet for the benefit of the economic elite, using organisations like the World Bank and IMF to economically rape already poor nations etc. etc.

I'll smoke my spliff, thanks.


*(alcohol seems to be an exception both for historical reasons and also, I suspect, because it fuels that part of the human brain that governs tribal territorial dispute)

/rant

thetonynator

I_AmThe_Walrus wrote: »

Now, you're just being silly.

Google is your friend if you want to know the truth. Not one recorded fatality has resulted in the consumption of marijuana.

Maybe not from the consumption ( although i doubt it . . .over consumption can lead to a lot of the same effects of smoking, but people never blame it on the marajuana. Also, how many people have died from walking out on a road or doing something ridiculously stupid cos they were so stoned out of their mind to realise what they were doing???

Odysseus

thetonynator wrote: »

Maybe not from the consumption ( although i doubt it . . .over consumption can lead to a lot of the same effects of smoking, but people never blame it on the marajuana. Also, how many people have died from walking out on a road or doing something ridiculously stupid cos they were so stoned out of their mind to realise what they were doing???

It is something I would agree with but very diffficult to prove, fatal RTA's would be an example. It was already raised but what is it about the Irish psyche and our need to control things. I'm a firearms owner and the control of firearms over here seems to come from a similar vain, the need to protect people from the consequences of improper use, just in case someone does something "bad" or "wrong" we are all classed the same.

Odysseus

OP you still have not answered my last question about whether you are able to see the negative effects the substance can have on some people [unless I missed the post]. I certainly don't have the answers, but a balanced perspective needs to acknowledge both sides of the coin.



Edit: Whilst I agree that education about it can have a positive effect, I don't think it will solve the problem with those for who it causes problems.

ScumLord

Odysseus wrote: »

You have a fair point, but the difference is they are controlled to various degrees and not prescribed for recretational use, in most cases;)

True, but it put's the warnings into context. Everything on the planet no matter how benine to mos the population is goin to have an adverse effect on a small proportion of people. Even things like milk and dispren can kill certain people.

We can't judge the thing on the adverse reaction a small number of people. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

These are all fairly minor harmful side effects and even all put together don't justify criminalising cannabis users and funding organised crime.

Odysseus

ScumLord wrote: »

True, but it put's the warnings into context. Everything on the planet no matter how benine to mos the population is goin to have an adverse effect on a small proportion of people. Even things like milk and dispren can kill certain people.

We can't judge the thing on the adverse reaction a small number of people. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

These are all fairly minor harmful side effects and even all put together don't justify criminalising cannabis users and funding organised crime.

You know I'm against prohibition, but is it really a need?

Spend a bit of time in a drug treatment setting or a psych unit with those who experience problems with it and I really doubt you wpuld use the word minor. These issues can be quite significant.

However, I agree people should not become criminals just because the like a bit of smoke.

biko

I_AmThe_Walrus wrote: »

Firstly, I want to express the fact that I am not a regular user of the drug itself, nor am I condoning it - I am just interested how society has labeled it negatively when they are unwilling to educate the ill-informed about the benefits.

1) It is not in any way, shape or form, addictive, mentally or physically.
2) It has unlimited and legitimate medical uses.
3) It is not a "gateway" drug.
4) If it was legal, organised crime would fall.
5) Government can tax it and give tourism a boost.

The funny thing about this whole farce is, Marijuana has been legal in the Netherlands since the 30's and according to the consumption stats, the Dutch use the recreational drug the least. Not one recorded fatality has occurred from the use of marijuana, yet alcohol and tobacco are severe killers and they're still available.

What are you thoughts? Should it be available for purchase, legally?

I_AmThe_Walrus wrote: »

This issue must be openly debated using only the facts. Groundless claims, meaningless statistics, and exaggerated scare stories that have been peddled by politicians and prohibitionists. ANNUAL DEATHS CAUSED BY DRUGS.

TOBACCO …………………… 400,000
ALCOHOL …………………… 100,000
ALL LEGAL DRUGS ……… 20,000
ALL ILLEGAL DRUGS ……15,000
CAFFEINE ……………………. 2,000
ASPIRIN ……………………… 500
MARIJUANA …………………. 0
—————————————-

LOL, the "facts" you mention are from www.legalizationofmarijuana.com or similar sites.
Do you have any links to medical journals or accepted media (not biased for nor against?).

Don't get me wrong, I'm for a legislation (for medical use, not for stoners) but if you cannot provide strong scientific grounds for your facts then they'll just be pushed aside.

I_AmThe_Walrus wrote: »

Firstly, I'm not here to convince you of why it should be legal like all the other threads.

Oh but you most certainly are.The OP has your 5 reasons why weed should be legal!

There is no difference between those threads and this. Your OP claims "they are unwilling to educate the ill-informed about the benefits." and your poll states Yes - it has numerous benefits.
What benefits? You haven't provided any examples.
So far I haven't found any benefits (except this) in this thread. Weed can also be used to counter glaucoma but only OAPs will benefit from that. And that argument cannot be used to supply weed to everyone.

Medical marijuana - yes, for general use - no.

seensensee

Doc wrote: »

Researchers at Cardiff University (Stanley Zammit and colleagues) found a connection between frequent pot smoking and psychosis, schizophrenia, hearing voices and hallucinations. People who haven't smoked pot are less likely to display the same psychotic illnesses.

The researchers were clear that it's not that marijuana causes psychosis. Rather, marijuana triggers mental illness if the individual already has a predisposition to that illness. So if your family has a history of schizophrenia or other psychotic illnesses, smoking pot now could predispose you to struggle with mental illness later in life.

The British researchers concluded that "there is now sufficient evidence to warn young people that cannabis use will increase their risk of psychosis."

The effect of marijuana on psychotic illnesses may vary from individual to individual. Hallucinations, hearing voices, psychotic delusions and schizophrenia could be triggered by many things – and pot smoking may be one of them. It also depends on how much pot you smoke. The British study found that frequent pot smokers (daily or weekly marijuana users) were 50 to 200% more likely to experience psychosis. Your age and genetics also affects whether marijuana will trigger a psychotic illness.

This is somthing for personal reasons I have done quite a bit of research on I have read a lot on the subject and I do believe it is trigger for mental illness.

All due respect to you doc but it appears your research is totally inconclusive...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabidiol

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/303438.stm

The above links provide some indication that in fact cannabis is being used in the treatment of mental illness.

It appears that in an illegal environment there is no quality control regarding the production and distribution of cannabis, therefore the users are subjected to unknown chemical consumption.
It has been discovered that cannabis with a high THC content but lacking in CBD can exacerbate symptoms of mental illness for some people, however in the legal environment studies are conducted and results show that even schizophrenics benefit from an appropriate cannabis based medicine.

It's a complex subject, but keeping cannabis illegal ensures a potentially hazardous supply, it can be a bad strain mixed treated with any old toxic crap, is that what you want?

DOC09UNAM

D.R cowboy wrote: »

I will if you take back your thread, drugs destroy peoples lives every day and make it hell for people likes us, who have to live with those people in our society.

If everyone was high, nothing would get done.

If everyone was drunk, nothing would get done.

Odysseus

seensensee wrote: »

All due respect to you doc but it appears your research is totally inconclusive...

To be fair, I think we will be waiting a very long time for the research that totally proves either viewpoint one way or another.

TPD

I've read through the thread and don't think I've seen a real counter to the 'gateway drug' thing. Maybe that's because nobody really sees this as a viable argument against cannabis legalisation any more. In case anyone still does, here goes:
Cannabis being illegal is the only way in which it acts as a gateway drug. Because it is illegal, it needs to be bought from drug dealers, who also sell harder drugs. In the same way a legal off license doesn't influence people towards trying illegal cannabis, a legal cannabis retailer wouldn't influence people towards trying harder, illegal drugs.

mikom

TPD wrote: »

Cannabis being illegal is the only way in which it acts as a gateway drug. Because it is illegal, it needs to be bought from drug dealers, who also sell harder drugs. .

Spot on.
It's the dealers equivalent of "do you want fries with that".

seensensee

Odysseus wrote: »

To be fair, I think we will be waiting a very long time for the research that totally proves either viewpoint one way or another.

Fair comment but one must recognise that cannabis is being used as a legal medicine despite the risks. In addition to it's medical value more than 6 EU countries have decriminalised it for recreational use, It begs the question are those societies attempting to sabotage the mental health of their citizens?

Odysseus

seensensee wrote: »

Fair comment but one must recognise that cannabis is being used as a legal medicine despite the risks. In addition to it's medical value more than 6 EU countries have decriminalised it for recreational use, It begs the question are those societies attempting to sabotage the mental health of their citizens?

Interesting viewpoint, what do you think on the "sabotage" issue?

Odysseus

TPD wrote: »

I've read through the thread and don't think I've seen a real counter to the 'gateway drug' thing. Maybe that's because nobody really sees this as a viable argument against cannabis legalisation any more. In case anyone still does, here goes:
Cannabis being illegal is the only way in which it acts as a gateway drug. Because it is illegal, it needs to be bought from drug dealers, who also sell harder drugs. In the same way a legal off license doesn't influence people towards trying illegal cannabis, a legal cabbanis retailer wouldn't influence people towards trying harder, illegal drugs.

This gateway issue, I have I guess taken over 10,000 drug histories during the course of my career. Now in a high proportion of cases no stats but a educated guess at my own experience 80-90% of those first drug is cannabis somewhere between 11-15 years old. In a drug history for various reasons alcohol is ont noted as a drug, though in a most cases it does predate the use of another substance. However, I don't just to get bogged down in that.

Most people moved to different drug for a different reason than the dealer trying to offer it to them. Now I mostly see those for whom it has become a problem, if it is not a problem for a person, they rarely see the inside of my facility, that has to be factored in. So trying cannabis do not mean you will try other drugs but it is often the first port of call for people who become addicted to more problematic drugs. However, I don't think the "dealer" is too much of a factor in it.


Edit: to be fair, I just had a think on it I think 10,000 is a subjective quickly and wrongly thought out number. I think around 5,000 over the past 13 years would be more correct, as a rough quess.

TPD

Odysseus wrote: »

This gateway issue, I have I guess taken over 10,000 drug histories during the course of my career. Now in a high proportion of cases no stats but a educated guess at my own experience 80-90% of those first drug is cannabis somewhere between 11-15 years old. In a drug history for various reasons alcohol is ont noted as a drug, though in a most cases it does predate the use of another substance. However, I don't just to get bogged down in that.

Most people moved to different drug for a different reason than the dealer trying to offer it to them. Now I mostly see those for whom it has become a problem, if it is not a problem for a person, they rarely see the inside of my facility, that has to be factored in. So trying cannabis do not mean you will try other drugs but it is often the first port of call for people who become addicted to more problematic drugs. However, I don't think the "dealer" is too much of a factor in it.

It's the first port of call if you stick your fingers in your ears, close your eyes and shout 'LALALALA' when drugs like alcohol, tobacco and caffeine are mentioned. If cannabis was viewed in the same light as alcohol, this thread would be about legalising ecstacy and you'd be saying that ecstacy is the first port of call for many harder drug users.

It's a weak drug, if you use stronger ones you'll likely have tried weaker ones. Nobody gets hammered on Absinthe their first night drinking.

Odysseus

TPD wrote: »

It's the first port of call if you stick your fingers in your ears, close your eyes and shout 'LALALALA' when drugs like alcohol, tobacco and caffeine are mentioned. If cannabis was viewed in the same light as alcohol, this thread would be about legalising ecstacy and you'd be saying that ecstacy is the first port of call for many harder drug users.

It's a weak drug, if you use stronger ones you'll likely have tried weaker ones. Nobody gets hammered on Absinthe their first night drinking.

Yeah spot on, that is what I do, which is why I'm so anti-drug have a look back on my posts. Alcohol is not listed as a different service deals with that. I have treated people for very unusal addictions and never have to deal with any issues around caffine, though I'm addicted to it.

You making a big presumption, if cannabis was legal why would you assume that it would be E that would people would use. We record other drugs that are legal, for example some people start of by using their partent's benzo's, so it would not be a case of E being the one people would start on, why not speed?

You last point refers to something about a gateway model. That's my point there is something to it, that does not mean it is the truth. Remember not all people who work with drug users believe in prohibition. At the end of the day, one of the most realistic posts here was the person who pointed out that it's about the persons relation to pleasure, anything that causes pleasure can cause a problem if that is all the person seeks. Lastly some people do go straight to the end of the scale, I have met a good few people who's first drug outside of the everyday day ones was heroin.

seensensee

Odysseus wrote: »

Interesting viewpoint, what do you think on the "sabotage" issue?

I don't believe those governments intend to destroy the mental health of their citizens, after all it is the Individual who makes the choices in life.
Look at how decriminalisation has worked in Portugal, the individual has the freedom to use cannabis, if that user is experiencing health problems then the Portuguese system encourages the user to seek treatment, Portugal has taken cannabis usage out of the shadows, removed the stigma of seeking treatment for those who need it, they use a "nip it in the bud" strategy. It can only provide a greater awareness of potential hazard and overall their system seems to be all about harm reduction, no sabotage there.

Edit: I forgot to mention that individuals who have health problems and who require cannabis based therapy are provided for, which begs the question are prohibitive societies sabotaging the human rights of their citizens by denying appropriate treatment?
Some prohibitive societies actively set out to destroy the lives of cannabis users, I call that brutal sabotage.

TPD

Odysseus wrote: »

You making a big presumption, if cannabis was legal why would you assume that it would be E that would people would use. We record other drugs that are legal, for example some people start of by using their partent's benzo's, so it would not be a case of E being the one people would start on, why not speed?

I was just using E as an example of a low danger drug. If alcohol were made illegal, it may become the gateway drug.

Professionally you don't deal with alcohol, but do you see how easily a comparison is drawn? It's a bit silly to use the gateway argument against cannabis when cannabis is only filling the 'gateway' spot by chance, and a change in law could switch another drug to the 'gateway' position.

Wetbench4

I think its one of the most useful materials on the planet, and it baffles me as to why its illegal. But this being nana country Ireland, it will be years for people stop thinking backwards and allow people to decide for themselves if they want a toke.
I didn't have a good look but here's one of many scientific studies done on its use-> http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S0100-879X2006000400001&script=sci_arttext

ScumLord

Odysseus wrote: »

This gateway issue, I have I guess taken over 10,000 drug histories during the course of my career. Now in a high proportion of cases no stats but a educated guess at my own experience 80-90% of those first drug is cannabis somewhere between 11-15 years old. In a drug history for various reasons alcohol is ont noted as a drug, though in a most cases it does predate the use of another substance. However, I don't just to get bogged down in that.

Most people moved to different drug for a different reason than the dealer trying to offer it to them. Now I mostly see those for whom it has become a problem, if it is not a problem for a person, they rarely see the inside of my facility, that has to be factored in. So trying cannabis do not mean you will try other drugs but it is often the first port of call for people who become addicted to more problematic drugs. However, I don't think the "dealer" is too much of a factor in it.


Edit: to be fair, I just had a think on it I think 10,000 is a subjective quickly and wrongly thought out number. I think around 5,000 over the past 13 years would be more correct, as a rough quess.

I think tobacco is the gateway drug. It's often the first drug young people try and supposedly it does cause a change in brain chemistry that makes the user much more susceptible to addiction to other drugs, not to mention it's your first time flaunting the law with drug use. It's more than likely the first drug people will become addicted to.

I_AmThe_Walrus

Cigarettes causes chronic lung disease, coronary heart disease, and stroke, as well as cancer of the lungs, larynx, esophagus, mouth, and bladder. In addition, smoking is known to contribute to cancer of the cervix, pancreas, and kidneys. By the same token, alcohol causes alcoholism, cardio-vascular disease, malabsorption, pancreatitis, cirrhosis of the liver, peripheral and central nervous system damage as well as violent behaviour.

In addition, the world's most used drug, caffeine users can suffer from chronic insomnia, persistent anxiety and depression, and chronic stomach ulcers, irregular heartbeat and the rising of cholesterol levels and has the ability to cause a variety of reproductive effects.

Now, several people have asked me to post my findings as to why I think it should be legal. I never said I think it should be legal, I only posted the things I could find into why anyone would believe it should be illegal. Two different things.

Secondly, these people who have asked me to post why I think it should be legal, yet by the same token, they haven't posted any official scientific studies into why it should be illegal.

Now, I've posted the top three legal drugs on the market today. Look at the side-effects...are any less harmful than the unofficial research into what Marijuana may or may not do? NO. Yet, not only is this substance illegal for consumption where it has many benefits, regarding medical usage, it is also a great material, production wise, this is where most of you misunderstood upon reading the word "Marijuana", thinking immediately of the drug...but what about the other benefits?

So it's outlawed...and has no less harmful effects than those already on the market, could anything....anything be more ridiculous and yet, it is no more ridiculous than the laws in this country.

As far as a gateway drug, people mentioned some good points - if marijuana was decriminalised, somebody would find something else to blame as the "gateway drug" for the downfall in society.