Mitsuo Oda said:
Another thing to point out is that many teens that smoke the stuff feel that it's ok to take different drugs that's offered to them, since, to them, they haven't had any kind of problems. So they feel invincible and that nothing wrong will happen.
None of the above is an argument against legalising drugs.
Teenagers do feel invincible. You can blame anti-drug campaigners for demonising drugs in general and for preaching the rubbish that all drugs are the same. When a teenager uses cannabis for a while they are going to realise these nuts lied to them and since all drugs are the same they'll do anything else with abandon. Cannabis won't even produce any noticeable hangover in a young healthy person. Problem is that drugs are not super-harmful as protrayed by the anti-drug loons so it really doesn't matter which drug comes first. Instead of sensible information teenagers get bombarded with lies in an attempt to frighten them. There's a stupid idea, trying to frighten born non-conformists (well most, there are always some sheep in the bunch).
Mitsuo Oda said:
how many more hard drug users are in the NL (since acc. to you there is some automatism on the way to hard drugs)
According to you actually. It is intrinsic in the gateway drug fantasy.
Mitsuo Oda said:
Marijuana users have been known to become bored with the drug, so they look for a new high.
Maybe, maybe not. Entirely irrelevant to a debate on legalisation.
Mitsuo Oda said:
?gA 2002 SAMHSA report, Initiation of Marijuana Use: Trends, Patterns and Implications, concludes that the younger children are when they first use marijuana, the more likely they are to use cocaine and heroin and become dependent on drugs as adults. The report found that 62 percent of adults age 26 or older who initiated marijuana before they were 15 years old reported that they had used cocaine in their lifetime. More than 9 percent reported they had used heroin and 53.9 percent reported non-medical use of psychotherapeutics. This compares to a 0.6 percent rate of lifetime use of cocaine, a 0.1 percent rate of lifetime use of heroin and a 5.1 percent rate of lifetime non-medical use of psychotherapeutics for those who never used marijuana. Increases in the likelihood of cocaine and heroin use and drug dependence are also apparent for those who initiate use of marijuana at any later age.?g
A correlation. Interesting, but essentially meaningless. It tells us nothing about cannabis. The above could tell us that users of various drugs are likely to also try cannabis, although I am going to assume they actually asked which illegal drug was used first and it was cannabis.
People who explore a wide range of drugs have something in common and it has nothing to do with whether or not cannabis exists. There are also people who just want to be as intoxicated as possible as often as possible to drown out the world. This again has nothing to do with whether cannabis exists.
Mitsuo Oda said:
"Hey, if you thought that stuff was good, then you'll Love this stuff". I mean, they get the drugs from someone. That means they have a higher potential to get their hands on other drugs.
Funny thing is that the pusher is largely a myth. They don't create supply, they merely fill a demand. They attempt to acquire the drugs their customers request. Most users aren't out to just get high on whatever comes to hand, but want to a specific experience, and since every drug is different it is hard to offer anything that is a viable substitute. You can even substitute cocaine with amphetamine or vice-versa; and hallucinogens are all completely different.
Your statements are however all arguments for legalisation. No more shady dealers.
Mitsuo Oda said:
You're right, there is a fair chance of that happening. But why would you want it doubled to a "Great chance" just to add in some marijuana.
So there are two groups, alcohol users, who are currently potentially likely to drive drunk, and cannabis users, who because cannabis is legal currently only drive sober?
Mitsuo Oda said:
I wouldn't worry much about anyone driving on cocaine. They're likely to be less of a road hazard than a sober person. People aren't likely to drive on ecstasy - if they chose to it would require a major effort and the effects are likely to make them drive slowly and very cautiously (even more so than cannabis intoxication, which also causes the intoxicated person to become a much more cautious driver, despite not causing major impairment of co-ordination).
Unlike alcohol drugs like MDMA, THC, LSD etc. make people think they can't drive. There is nothing more ridiculous than drunk people who can barely sit up insisting they can drive, and when they do they speed off.
Again though none of this is an argument against legalisation. Everyone who wants to use drugs is already going to do so. The scaremongering and laws don't scare off those who are interested in these experiences.
Mitsuo Oda said:
the tobacco companies, once given the go ahead to commence the growing operations, wouldn't conduct business any differently with marijuana than they have with tobacco
So? For decades they faked information and pretended their product was safe. However, no-one can with a straight face claim this tricked them into thinking smoking was safe. For decades we have known the risks and those risks have been highly publicised. I still think smoking is cool because it just looks cool to hold a cigarette and blow smoke, but I've also always been well aware that smoking is unhealthy.
Mitsuo Oda said:
Oh no, not the dreaded Liberal Media (tm).