POLL: Marijuana

[steven lloyd]

To me it looks like legalization of more drugs will open the door to much more abuse and probably much more addiction.

Interestingly, most of the research just doesn't support that supposition. However, I'm not rehashing 292 pages of posts already with ample links that interested (and maybe even objective) people can examine for themselves.

[rideforever]

Prohibition fail: A study says teens can get drugs in 10 minutes. They'll never stop the supply, I wish they'd quit wasting our money on their feeble attempts.

If they're so worried about people using drugs that they wanna spend our money fighting it then atleast spend it efficiently, fund sports, arts, schooling and job creation programs so people have better stuff to do, spend it on rehab for those who want to quit and education to help people avoid it.

Or better yet, legalize it and let the users fund all of this. We'll get the added bonus of reducing profits for gangs and removing the perception that legal drugs are harmless. If mj, a drug widely viewed as harmless is prohibited then anything not prohibited must be even more harmless... or so the boozers, coffee drinkers and prescription drug users would like to think.


http://www.castanet.net/edition/news-st ... .htm#79104

Vancouver youth can find drugs easily

by The Canadian Press - Story: 79104
Aug 14, 2012 / 7:56 am

A study called "surprising" by one of its lead researchers has found hard drugs are just ten minutes away for Vancouver's young users.

The study conducted by the B.C. Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS found that despite decades of efforts to combat drugs, heroin, crack, cocaine, crystal meth and marijuana can be obtained within minutes, particularly by young drug users.

Dr. Evan Wood, an internal medicine physician and senior author of the study, noted the U.S. declared the war on drugs 40 years ago, but that hasn't helped at-risk youth avoid falling into drug use.

"Their reality in terms of the free and easy availability of drugs is, I think, discordant from your average Canadian's understanding of just how . . . available drugs are on the streets of Canadian cities," said Wood.

The study, to be released today, surveyed two groups of people in 2007; one between 14 and 26 years of age who had used an illicit drug other or in addition to marijuana at least 30 days before joining the study.

The other consisted of adult drug users over 16 years old who injected drugs at least a month before the survey.

Both studies asked "How difficult would it be for you to get drugs right now in the area you typically obtain your drugs?"

They then focused on those who answered they could get drugs in ten minutes and found the small time frame wasn't just for marijuana, but for hard drugs as well.

"That's, I think, the most surprising thing," said Wood.

"I'm in the office right now. It would probably take me more than ten minutes to go and be able to buy a bottle of wine."

Vancouver police spokesman Const. Lindsey Houghton wasn't shocked.

"I don't think it is a surprise to anyone that if someone is motivated enough and has the knowledge on how to obtain illegal drugs, they could probably do it fairly quickly," wrote Houghton in an email.

"I'm sure if the study was done 5, 10, or 15 years ago the numbers would't have been much different."

Houghton hasn't seen the study yet, but has worked with at-risk youth in the past and said what is important is access to medical care should users have a problem and access to services to help end their addictions.

Wood said the easy access means current drug policies are not succeeding in stopping the availability and use of illegal drugs and Houghton's comments show police know this.

"While the police are aware, I think your average Canadian is totally unaware of the fact that our streets are so awash in drugs," said Wood, stressing he doesn't want to sugest he's negative about police efforts.

"If supply reduction is the foundation of Canada's drug strategy, we really need to have an impact assessment and evaluation of what we're actually getting from that investment."

He said money spent on prisons and trying to cut the supply of drugs would be more wisely spent on rehabilitation programs and community outreach efforts.

Wood said legalization and regulation would also cut down on incidents where impure products injure users and compared use to that of people going blind drinking homemade booze during alcohol prohibition.

[Looney]

Rideforever wrote:

If mj, a drug widely viewed as harmless is prohibited then anything not prohibited must be even more harmless... or so the boozers, coffee drinkers and prescription drug users would like to think.

According to the article it would seem like it is the drug users that feel that way. They use the legal drugs, oxy, feeling they are safer. Does that not mean there is danger as some have been saying all along that legalizing these other drugs will make them seem safer (in some cases it actually will) also and thereby increase useage. Is that what we really want? It certainly seems they will not be anymore controlled if they are legalized if the current ones aren't.

[fluffy]

I think the benefits of legalization in their effect on the criminal activity connected to the drug trade are obvious, and on that basis alone legalization would get my vote. However, from a more ethical viewpoint I think as a society we are far too indulgent already in mind-altering diversions such as drugs and alcohol, and the argument that "we'll never, ever get rid of it so we might as well accept it and support its continued use" is a defeatist and unhealthy position. It also occurs to me that the vast majority of those supporting legalization are more concerned with getting yet another legal buzz on, and that their support of the other benefits of legalization is just a means help achieve their primary purpose, that of getting high.

[Looney]

You just reminded me of GB's "we can't do it" NDP.

[rideforever]

Rideforever wrote:

If mj, a drug widely viewed as harmless is prohibited then anything not prohibited must be even more harmless... or so the boozers, coffee drinkers and prescription drug users would like to think.

According to the article it would seem like it is the drug users that feel that way. They use the legal drugs, oxy, feeling they are safer. Does that not mean there is danger as some have been saying all along that legalizing these other drugs will make them seem safer (in some cases it actually will) also and thereby increase useage. Is that what we really want? It certainly seems they will not be anymore controlled if they are legalized if the current ones aren't.

That's a different article but I disagre anyways. Coffee, alcohol, and presciption drugs being legal isn't what makes them seem safe, it's the prohibition of harmless drugs that makes the legal drugs seem harmless.

[rideforever]

I think the benefits of legalization in their effect on the criminal activity connected to the drug trade are obvious, and on that basis alone legalization would get my vote. However, from a more ethical viewpoint I think as a society we are far too indulgent already in mind-altering diversions such as drugs and alcohol, and the argument that "we'll never, ever get rid of it so we might as well accept it and support its continued use" is a defeatist and unhealthy position. It also occurs to me that the vast majority of those supporting legalization are more concerned with getting yet another legal buzz on, and that their support of the other benefits of legalization is just a means help achieve their primary purpose, that of getting high.

If someone puts a huge amount of effort into solving a problem and they fail over and over for decades and then they try a different method I wouldn't call them defeatist. Anyone with half a brain would try a different method instead of just continueing to get nowhere with a method that's a proven failure.

You make it sound like you think prohibition is the best way to decrease drug use. It's not. All prohibition does is attempt to block the supply, but when teens can get hard drugs in 10 minutes, they're obviously having ZERO effect on the supply. They should see that people don't use drugs because they don't want to, not because they can't get them. Focus on that side, the demand, not the supply. Encourage people to not buy drugs instead of trying to discourage people from selling drugs. That doesn't mean supporting it's use, it just means finding a better way to fight it.

[fluffy]

You make it sound like you think prohibition is the best way to decrease drug use.

I didn't say that. I do however, believe that as a society we would be better off without the recreational use of drugs and alcohol, but I'm not so naive to think it could happen overnight, or even happen at all. It's just too deeply ingrained in our society. But, just for example, look at the advances that have been made against tobacco use. Fifty years ago over half the adult population smoked, now I think the figures are closer to fifteen percent. This was accomplished through a steady onslaught of taxation, education and increasing restrictions of use, not outright prohibition. These tactics produced a grassroots shift in the attitudes towards tobacco, most folk are turned off by the thought of smoking now. I see no reason the same couldn't work for drugs or alcohol. Other than the fact that the majority likes to get a glow on now and then.

[GoStumpy]

Statement:

Lets legalize marijuana! That way the government can tax it and regulate it!

My thoughts:

Why would you want to pay tax on something??

[Sneaksuit]

My thoughts...why do you want to stop people from using marijuana?

[GoStumpy]

I just want my employees to stop so they're not such airhead stoners

[Centurion]

Three states have Cannabis legalization on their November ballots including our neighbors to the south in Washington State.

[Looney]

Could it be California all over again?

[rideforever]

Why would you want to pay tax on something??

Legallizing and taxing doesn't mean the price will go up. Look at cigarettes, they're way cheaper than mj despite the fact that they're heavily taxed and production involves adding chemicals and filters. If legallized, they could produce in bulk using machines instead of well paid labourers which would drop the costs enough to leave room for taxation without increasing cost to user. Only difference to users will be that they get their product from a regulated source which probably produces a safer product with less random garbage in it.

[steven lloyd]

More evidence to legalize and regulate marijuana use:

IQ decline linked to pot smoking teens
by The Canadian Press - Story: 79737
Aug 27, 2012 / 3:28 pm

Teens who routinely smoke marijuana risk a long-term drop in their IQ, a new study suggests.

The researchers didn't find the same IQ decline for people who became frequent users of pot after 18.

Although experts said the new findings are not definitive, they fit with earlier signs that the drug is especially harmful to the developing brain.

"Parents should understand that their adolescents are particularly vulnerable,'" said lead researcher Madeline Meier of Duke University.

Meier and colleagues reported their work online Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Study participants from New Zealand were tested for IQ at age 13, likely before any significant marijuana use, and again at age 38.

The mental decline between those two ages was seen only in those who started regularly smoking pot before age 18.
Richie Poulton, a study co-author and professor at the University of Otago in New Zealand, said the message of the research is to stay away from marijuana until adulthood if possible.

Pot smoking is relatively common in US teens. The government reported in June that 23 per cent of older teen students said they'd recently smoked marijuana, making it more popular than cigarettes.

Experts said the new research is an advance because its methods avoid the criticisms of some earlier work, which generally did not measure mental performance before marijuana use began.

http://www.castanet.net/edition/news-st ... .htm#79737