Should cannabis be legal in every country ?

[Maciamo]

I am continuing here the discussion from this thread

Moyashi was saying :

I heard that weed is safer than cigarettes and alchol. hmmm ....

Not only have I heard the same, but that seems to have been proved by several scientific researches in many countries.

Tobacco causes lung cancer (also proven, I guess everyone knows) and is highly addictive psychologically (because of the nicotine).

Alcohol destroys the body cells in general, especially neurons that are more fragile than other cells. It is also highly addictive, but rather physically (you know, some of these manual workers who can't start their day without their 24 bottles of beer with them).

Like everything, abuse is nocive, while moderate consumption doesn' put health at risk. A heavy drinker (alcoholic) is more likely to have serious health problem than a heavy cannabis smoker. Cannabis doesn't cause cancer, is very little addictive (most users smoke just once in a while, without feeling the need for more) and has not yet been known to cause any disease or death by "overdose".

IMHO, cannabis should be legal if alcohol and tobaco are legal. I ma not saying that because I am interested in smoking it or obtain it easily, but by pure logic. People are free to put their health at risk with cigarettes and boot, and as long as warnings are clearly written on packs and bottles, I find it normal. It's probably a good thing to keep them legal as it can be controlled, fo instance with heavy taxes keeping prices high and thus actively discouraging people to abuse.

When centenarian are interviewed, they almost systematically say that they smoke and drink alcohol MODERATELY (3 butts and a glass of wine a day). But they do. So, like homeopathy, some substances are apparently good for the body at small dose, but poisonous/toxic at higher dose.

There is no law to force people to moderation. Henceforth, that must come from education.

I believe that drugs, including alcohol and cigarettes, must be kept/made legal in order to avoid black market criminality (mafias, etc.) and to better control what people are doing.

This can only happen in a country where people are reasonable or responsible. A vast number of Japanese smoke, but generally not more than a few cigarettes a day. I personally know lots of Western teenagers who unashamedly smoke 2 packs a day.
So, are the average American so irresponsible in regard to their European counterparts that cannabis must be so strictly banned, alcohol forbidden before 21-25, etc. ? By what crooked logic should weeds be outlawed for medical purpose, while even the hardest drugs like opium/morphine are actually legal (very good painkiller).

[thomas]

It seems to be a common trend nowadays to decriminalize/legalize so-called soft drugs (such as cannabis). It's certainly a step in the right direction. In most European countries drug offences involving cannabis are no longer prosecuted, as long as the amount in question can still be justified for personal consumption. From a criminal (and perhaps medical) point of view, cannabis is certainly less dangerous than alcohol which means that the amount of crimes committed under the influence of grass is marginal compared to alcohol-related crimes.

So, like homeopathy, some substances are apparently good for the body at small dose, but poisonous/toxic at higher dose.

Take our neighbour: she's 97, smoked until her eighties and still has her daily glass of wine. However, I'm generally a bit sceptical when it comes to homeopathy, as it *seems* to be based on nothing else than placebo effect.

I know it's off topic, but the delicate question is how to deal with hard drugs (cocaine, heroine, "new drugs"). Continue the hard stance or try to decriminalize as well under strict governmental control?

[Twisted]

You could ask wether or not cannabis should be legal, but you could also ask this question: Why are alcohol and cigarettes legal at all?
You're pretty pathetic if you need alcohol to have a good time or having to smoke to keep your nerves in order. It's proven that it's bad for your health, so logically, there's no reason not to make it illegal.
The most probable reason is that the people in charge are heavy users themselves.
In Holland we have government officials that have admitted they have used drugs in the past and nobody thinks it's a big deal.

[Maciamo]

@government officials in charge
Unfortunately, in the so-called democracy we live in, decision are taken by just a few officials and everything depends on them, not really the population.

@should alcohol and tobacco stay legal ?
alcohol has always been part of human societies since the antiquity and I can't imagine a country banning it without facing a revolution. I wouldn't mind personally, except maybe for wine. Could you imagine a country like France or Germany banning alcohol (or most Western countries actually) ? The economy would suffer terribly. Besides, it's also proven that a glass of red wine a day is good for health.

Similarily, I have never smoked and it will stay like that, so I am being the devil's advocate here. Tobacco is not going to be illegal because big lobby groups assure it won't.

Restricting freedom isn't good ; I find it more harmful than having access to toxic substances. Our life is our, I don't see why the authorities try so hard to care about people's health.

If I wanted to travel to some dangerous regions because I like adventure, I wouldn't like to have the government restricting me from doing it because they believe it's risky. That's my choice, they have nothing to say in this. That's the same for cigarettes, alcohol, weeds or even hard drugs. Anyway, people who want to find drug can just travel to any country where it's made and get it cheap and easily. No government can prevent that and they know people do it. So why not at home ? To keep their hands and conscience clean ? From whom ?

[thomas]

> I don't see why the authorities try so hard to care
> about people's health.

With all due respect to liberal political views, I think that there are public functions that should remain under governmental control by all means: water supply, electricity, postal services and in particular public health. Don't get me wrong: I'm not favoring an omnipotential paternalistic government � la Big Brother, but as long as we benefit from national social security and health insurance each government is compelled to cut down medical expenses by ensuring public health. Alcohol and tobacco will never be banned (since governments benefit from taxes generated by these industries), but pointing out health hazards and trying to reduce the number of potential patients are no infringement of our personal freedom.

[Twisted]

It's also a fact that most people are brainless lemmings who will follow every trend that's forced upon them.

This is especially true with young people who don't realize how addictive drugs can be. They're just doing it because everyone else is doing it.

It's the job of the authorities to protect those people from themselves.

And cannabis itself might not be that bad, but i think there's a very thin line between trying soft-drugs and trying hard-drugs.

@Revolution
I knew someone would bring that up. If you ban tobacco and alcohol you might as well ban fast food as well. Now that's a health hazard! But then i would be the first one to lead a revolt. :)

[thomas]

> And cannabis itself might not be that bad, but i think there's a
> very thin line between trying soft-drugs and trying hard-drugs.

That's a very good point!

@ fast food

Probably food chains will soon be forced to add labels to each burger warning of potential health risks (I think we had that topic already). It's a general legal trend to hold others responsible for personal risks.

[Maciamo]

Thomas, I totally agree with you.

Of course, I am in favour of a government type that provides health insurance, even free public health care, and social security. These are things the state can do to help, but I would also be grateful if they helped people in giving them the freedom to choose how they live their lives, what they consume and even to **** their health up if that's what they want - as long as it doesn't infringe on other's people liberty...

Another thing that I find an unacceptable breach in human liberties is how most governments make it difficult or near impossible to change your name. In the UK, anybody is free to call himself whatever they want and change name as many times as they want. The easiest legal way to do it is by deed polls. Unfortunately, very few non English speaking countries admit name changes by deed polls or without passing through long tedious and costly juridical procedures, that might not even be granted if you don't have a good reason (such as ridiculous name, etc.). In the US, I have read that it was usually possible by petition (brought to a judge), but much easier in some states than in others. Why should every region (inside the US, EU...) have so different laws on such basic rights is still a mystery for me.

[thomas]

I've never heard about these deed polls, very interesting. Central European law practice does not know unilateral contracts that are binding to third parties, at least I am not aware of such a construction. At first glance it's obvious why most governments are not in favor of such deed polls, they could potentially destabilise the safe adminstration of law. Just think of how easily such things could be abused.

/me has to find out more about deed polls

[Maciamo]

I understand your concern about the safe administration of law. You would risk a lot to do it fraudulently, but if your intention are fraudulous, there are always ways of trafficking passports, ID or official documents. Basically, whether one just makes up a new birth certificate on your computer, asks professionals to forge some papers or does a fraudulent deed polls is the same and can all end up in a jail sentence. If you are honest, then why not have the right to do it ?

Notice that British ciyizens don't have ID cards yet (but it might come soon), so it has always been easy to open a bank account or buy something under a made-up name. In Australia, till recently it was possible to open a bank account under the name of Mickey Mouse and no one would have asked any proof or raised an eyebrow. That just seems incredible for continental Europeans, I agree. To get a passport legally, even with the simplicity of deed polls, it would be hard to get two under different names (anyway, it wouldn't be legal).

Still, name changes don't seems to be such a problem if the UK and other commonwealth countries can manage with this system.

[moyashi]

Interestingly enough I'm for legalization of drugs too.

Banning alcohol didn't work and only made the mob richer so I'm for taking away drug money out of the gangs pockets.

Legalization will provide a safe supply compared to what you buy on the street, you never know if you're getting good smak or watered down sh_t.

Also, beyond quality control you can limit the power of what people take.

DO I support drugs. I've tried pot a few times. It wasn't my thing. I'd prefer a society without them actually. But, I also understand that reality is something we need to face.

@ safety
I've never heard of an accident involving weed. While drunk driving we see almost every night non TV. I bet that weed would prevent a lot of the postal shootings in the states too since it's a great way to relieve stress.

@ name change in Japan
Is virtually impossible. There been cases were Grandpa register's a new born's name as "Toranosuke" while the parents were thinking of something like "Riki" the problem is that only a hanko (seal) is used and the document becomes binding. Lawyers and Judges need to brought in to fix it for a nice healthy fee.

Hmm, Deed Poll ... sounds like an interesting idea.

[Maciamo]

@name change in Japan
My wife actually could change her first name from kanji to hiragana when she was a child (her father had chosen the kanji, but her mother didn't like it). However it took 5 years in court and a lot of money !

[thomas]

Changing your name in Germany and Austria (and probably in other European countries) requires you to go through courts as well. Welp, it wouldn't take 5 years, but it's pretty expensive, considering the fact that you have to change all personal documents from birth certificate to passports. And yes, the authorities have the right to object to certain names in order to "protect" the applicant from inconvenience. Take the recent case of the Turkish guy living in Germany who intended to call his son "Osama Bin Laden".

[Maciamo]

I have checked a few sites on the net and so far I know that the proceedings are similar in France and Belgium. A Belgian official website put its stance clearly : "changing name is a favour, not a right". In both countries you have to apply to several offices, state the reason(s) why you want to change your name and wait for the decision of the judge. It seems easier for people with foreign sounding name to change so that they can adapt more easily. I have heard of several cases of people of Moroccan or Algerian origins being discriminated when they apply for a job just because their name is Mohamed Abdulah or the like.

[moyashi]

A few years back a father wanted to call his son "Akuma" he used kanji approved by the country and even took the government to court. Obviously he lost since the name means "Devil" the father was trying to fit for his right to name his son what ever he wanted and to provide his child with a name that would leave an impression.

[thomas]

I've heard about the Akuma case. Would it be possible in the States to call your child "Satan"? Do authorities have the right to interfere?

Btw, just let me post an article related to the original topic:

Restoring hemp to natural place in Japan's culture

=> http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/...20021109a1.htm

=> http://www.hemp.jp/e-top.html

[moyashi]

Yasunao Nakayama is definitely "connected". hmmm, with long hair like that!
He looks like a friend that's ahem ... connected.

Great Story actually. My aikido-gi is made from hemp. Really strong material actually. I've seen hemp surfboards too - basically unbreakable.

[Maciamo]

@hemp in traditional Japan
That's fair enough. India is the country of hemp par excellence and even there it is not really legal (for foreigners at least) to smoke it any more. The sadhus (Hindu saints) still consume it regularily and its so ingrained in the culture that no one who dare telling them anything. Actually, India also grows poppy and make opium. In Varanasi, I have seen a so-called "government shop" that was the only legal place to buy cannabis or opium, usually in cakes. Cannabis and opium have nothing to do with each other, however they are grouped together as "drug" under the influence of the US. Locals don't really care about drug laws in India. It's just a matter of international image and is chiefly destined to make money on the tourists's back, either by making them buy in "government shop" or fining them heavily otherwise (there's been several cases of imprisonment in Goa for those unable to pay the huge fine). Japan, India and other Asian countries should reconnect with their own culture and free themselves from Western influence. Singapore is for me the pinnacle of eagerly conformist society, ready to please the West by adopting its concepts and moral to extremes (for those of you who have been to Singapore and know what I am talking about- for others here !).

@Hemp Car
So they want to fight fossil combustion and to achieve this they'll drive 5000km by car. Did I miss something there ?

[thomas]

Just a brief question in regard to Singapore: isn't their rigidity a product of confucian thought? I'm not sure if they are trying hard to please the West.

[Twisted]

And then there was this report:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2419713.stm

[Maciamo]

Apparently scientists's opinions are divided. Here is an intersting debate on the BBCi Science section.

I didn't know cannabis cigarettes had more tar than tobacco, and therefore was more harmful for lungs.

On the other hand, there are plenty of ways to consume cannabis. I am no expert on this, but smoking pot seem to be totally harmless for lungs as there is no combustion. In India, the most popular way people had cannabis was through "special lassi" (a lassi is a kind of milkshake; special because made with marijuana or hashish). As I mentioned above, there are cannabis cookies as well. Some restaurants had "special pizza" in other countries (Thailand, etc.). You put what you want in them; sometimes weed, or magic mushrooms, even opium. I haven't tried any of them though.

I believe that magic mushrooms and opium are much more dangerous. Hallucinogenes (including LSD, mescaline, ecstasy, magic mushrooms...) should definitely be banned as they can leave someone mentally disturbed for life (if they have a "bad trip"). One time is enough if you are unlucky. Never even try.

Opium, morphine and heroine are painkiller and give a sensation of extreme well feeling, but have terrible side-effect and dependency. If sex is addictive (and it is), then heroine is 10 times more. Can you imagine quitting sex for the rest of your life ? Once you've tried heroine, it's the same, you can't imagine not trying again. Don't even think of touching it.

Cocaines and amphetamines are stimulants. They make you feel like a super human, boost up intelligence and physical strength and you never feel tired... until the effect stops and the reverse is happening. If you don't continue the intakes, you'll feel miserably depressed, devoid of energy and sullen. That's how dependency starts. Notice that it's more physical, while heroine's was very psychological.

In the whole, I think cannabis is very benign in comparison to other drugs. I wouldn't be so sure to legalise all kind of drugs, at least not without a very tight control and medical follow-up of addicts to help them quit. But cannabis, especially if consume in another form than cigarette is almsot certainly safer than alcohol and tobacco.

[Satori]

Hi Maciamo! I agree with you on this one. And here is an article with respect to the issue in the U.S.:

Once-Secret "Nixon Tapes" Show Why the U.S. Outlawed Pot
Kevin Zeese, AlterNet
March 21, 2002
Viewed on March 29, 2002

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Thirty years ago the United States came to a critical juncture in the drug war. A Nixon-appointed presidential commission had recommended that marijuana use not be a criminal offense under state or federal law. But Nixon himself, based on his zealous personal preferences, overruled the commission's research and doomed marijuana to its current illegal status.

This newly revealed information comes from declassified tapes of Oval Office conversations from 1971 and 1972, which show Nixon's aggressive anti-drug stance putting him directly at odds against many of his close advisors. Transcripts of the tape, and a report based on them, are available at www.csdp.org.

Congress, when it passed the Controlled Substances Act in 1970, temporarily labeled marijuana a "Schedule I substance" -- a flatly illegal drug with no approved medical purposes. But Congress acknowledged that it did not know enough about marijuana to permanently relegate it to Schedule I, and so they created a presidential commission to review the research and recommend a long-term strategy. President Nixon got to appoint the bulk of the commissioners. Not surprisingly, he loaded it with drug warriors. Nixon appointed Raymond Shafer, former Republican Governor of Pennsylvania, as Chairman. As a former prosecutor, Shafer had a "law and order," drug warrior reputation. Nixon also appointed nine Commissioners, including the dean of a law school, the head of a mental health hospital, and a retired Chicago police captain. Along with the Nixon appointees, two senators and two congressmen from each party served on the Commission.

The Shafer Commission -- officially known as the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse -- took its job seriously. They launched fifty research projects, polled the public and members of the criminal justice community, and took thousands of pages of testimony. Their work is still the most comprehensive review of marijuana ever conducted by the federal government.

After reviewing all the evidence, these drug warriors were forced to come to a different conclusion than they had at first expected. Rather than harshly condemning marijuana, they started talking about legalization. When Nixon heard such talk, he quickly denounced the Commission -- months before it issued its report.

As a result of Nixon's public rebuke, Shafer met with the President. The Commission was upset, and the purpose of the meeting was to reassure them. But Nixon didn't budge. Instead, he warned Shafer to get control of his commission and avoid looking like a "bunch of do-gooders" who are "soft on marijuana." He warned Shafer that the Commission would "look bad as hell" if it came out with recommendations different from the direction of Congress and the President.

During their meeting, Shafer reassured the President that he would not support "legalization," even though there were some on the Commission who did. He told Nixon they were looking for a unanimous recommendation. Nixon warned Shafer that he "had very strong feelings" on marijuana. Nixon and Shafer also discussed Shafer's potential appointment to a federal judgeship.

But in the end, the Shafer Commission issued a report that tried to correct the "extensive degree of misinformation," to "demythologize" and "desymbolize" marijuana. They reported finding that marijuana did not cause crime or aggression, lead to harder drug use or create significant biochemical, mental or physical abnormalities. They concluded: "Marihuana's relative potential for harm to the vast majority of individual users and its actual impact on society does not justify a social policy designed to seek out and firmly punish those who use it."

The most important recommendation of the Commission was the decriminalization of possession or non-profit transfer of marijuana. Decriminalization meant there would be no punishment -- criminal or civil -- under state or federal law.

Nixon reacted strongly to the report. In a recorded conversation on March 21, the day before the Commission released its report, Nixon said, "We need, and I use the word 'all out war,' on all fronts ... we have to attack on all fronts." Nixon and his advisors went on to plan a speech about why he opposed marijuana legalization, and proposed that he do "a drug thing every week" during the 1972 presidential election year. Nixon wanted a "Goddamn strong statement about marijuana ... that just tears the ass out of them."

Shafer was never appointed to the federal court.

Nixon's private comments about marijuana showed he was the epitome of misinformation and prejudice. He believed marijuana led to hard drugs, despite the evidence to the contrary. He saw marijuana as tied to "radical demonstrators." He believed that "the Jews," especially "Jewish psychiatrists" were behind advocacy for legalization, asking advisor Bob Haldeman, "What the Christ is the matter with the Jews, Bob?" He made a bizarre distinction between marijuana and alcohol, saying people use marijuana "to get high" while "a person drinks to have fun."

He also saw marijuana as part of the culture war that was destroying the United States, and claimed that Communists were using it as a weapon. "Homosexuality, dope, immorality in general," Nixon fumed. "These are the enemies of strong societies. That's why the Communists and the left-wingers are pushing the stuff, they're trying to destroy us." His approach drug education was just as simplistic: "Enforce the law. You've got to scare them."

Unfortunately, Nixon did more than just "scare them," whoever they were. His marijuana war rhetoric led to a dramatic increase in arrests. One year after his "all out war" comments, marijuana arrests jumped to 420,700 a year -- a full 128,000 more than the year before. Since then, nearly 15 million people have been arrested for marijuana offenses.

For thirty years, the United States has taken the path of Nixon's prejudice and ignored the experts. We now have the largest prison population in world history, and drug problems are no closer to solved. Indeed, plenty of evidence indicates that drug-related problems are worse than ever.

It did not have to be this way. At the same time that the Shafer Commission issued its report, the Bain Commission in Holland issued a report that made similar findings and recommendations. In Holland, they followed the advice of their experts. Thirty years later Holland has half the per-capita marijuana use as the U.S., far fewer drug-related problems and spends much less on drug enforcement. With statistics like that, it's no wonder that most of Europe is going Dutch. Just last week a British Commission issued a Shafer-like report, indicating that the U.K. is moving in the Dutch direction.

It is not too late for the U.S. to move to a more sensible path. We are approaching three quarters of a million marijuana arrests annually. Every year that the U.S. fails to adopt a policy based on research, science and facts we destroy millions of lives and tear apart millions of families.

Where will we be in another thirty years if we don't change course and make peace in the marijuana war? Now that we know the war's roots are rotten -- and after we've lived through the decades of damage and failure it has produced -- we should face the facts. The thirty-year- old recommendations of the Shafer Commission are a good place to start.

Kevin Zeese is the president of Common Sense for Drug Policy (www.csdp.org).

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Reproduction of material from any AlterNet.org pages without written permission is strictly prohibited. � 2001 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.

[Djzleite]

Should never be ilegal form the start, hope it becomes legalised, it haves amazing properties if used right ;)

[Ten'shi-no-Shippuu]

Go for Illegal!!
I made a thread about on the french forum:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8019

[playaa]

I don't smoke, nore drink much (only social) but I think it should be the user's choice. Your body, your choice what you do shouldn't be stopped and controlled by someone else unless it is harming others!

I also think it would help the situation, take for example prostitution in the U.S. and then prostitution that is being helped out by amsterdam, etc. Look at how much more control they have over the situation when it is helped instead of banned.