Should cannabis be legal in every country ?

[kragoh]

Isn't cannabis used in combination with tabacco?

Not by sane people. The English do it. However if you must smoke tobacco you're better off also using cannabis, either simultaneously or at other times. The anti-inflammatory affect of THC helps speed healing of damage caused by smoking.

[kragoh]

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.

Prostitution is kept illegal in the US due to idiotic puritanical thinking combined with basic misogyny. In other countries where it is illegal it is so largely due to misogyny. Only women get hurt by prostitution being illegal. They are the ones who get beaten up, raped, murdered and have most of their income stolen. And for most of history men were making the laws and it served them to keep women down.

As with the m0r0n-inspired drug laws there are signs that civilisation will prevail and remove these disgusting laws from our world. Perhaps not in my lifetime.

[kragoh]

And then there was this report:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2419713.stm

Their results are more extreme than that found by other researchers. We will have to wait to see whether other researchers find the same thing. It is however not as simple as tar and carcinogens. Not to mention that three joints a day is a lot. It also makes a difference that cigarette smokers are exposing their lungs to tar nearly constantly or at least at very close intervals.

It is also difficult to see how they go from 50% more to three joints being equivalent to 20 cigarettes which is nearly 700% more. The 50% more tallies reasonably with other research, but then they appear to slip into hysterical conjecture.

This is due to increased amounts of THC - or delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol, the major active chemical compound - in the cannabis consumed today.

If anything this should be reducing the damage because people actually smoke less. You don't smoke more because it is stronger. It is no different to alcohol - when I drink a beer it is usually 340ml, but when I have a whiskey it is 30ml. Same applies to cannabis.

Inhaling deeply and holding it in your lungs is a bad idea, although many tobacco smokers do it too. Cannabis is cheap enough that there is no need to try to maximise the effect from a single inhalation.

However to make it safer it should obviously be made legal. It will get even cheaper, paraphenalia can be encouraged and sold openly.

Anyway I wouldn't put too much faith in BBC reporting without proper references. It wouldn't be the first time they've published a ludicrous scare story with no reliable research behind it.

Basic fact, smoking anything is not going to be good for your lungs. Nothing wrong with telling people that.

The proper way to research this is to follow people who smoke only or almost exclusively cannabis for decades to see what happens.

[kragoh]

And not just make you do stupid things, but it can make you stupid.

Afraid not, it can't make you stupid.

[kragoh]

haha, yeah I've met quite a few people who smoke it waaaay too much and live their lives in a kind of constant trance. Maybe that's going a bit too far

Imagine if they drank alcohol all day?

[kragoh]

And then there was this report:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2419713.stm

And then there was this one:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2120441.stm

[kragoh]

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

It is well known. It isn't as simple as that though. Firstly cannabis users smoke far less than tobacco smokers. Secondly THC is an anti-inflammatory so cannabis smoke does not cause the extended inflammation of the lungs seen in tobacco smokers. It has been found that cannabis smokers and those who smoke both cannabis and tobacco show age-related decline in lung function equal to that of non-smokers. Both show higher incidence of lung cancer, the risk being related to relative amounts of tar ingested. Based on the latter the average cannabis smoker will still have much lower risk of lung cancer.

There is no need to pretend cannabis is safe. Life isn't safe. Telling people the possible risks is sufficient. I take part in full contact fighting and motorcycle racing, both dangerous activities, but I know the risks and they are acceptable to me.

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.

The probabilities are very, very low. Banning them makes no difference. Obviously people are using these drugs anyway so we have gained nothing other than criminalising a fairly harmless activity.

Nothing wrong with researching this, studying those rare people with a genetic predisposition to psychosis who have it triggered by hallucinogenic drugs to see if we can find common factors. With the drugs legal you could visit your doctor to be tested to see if you're one of those rare people. Or you could just take the chance. It's a calculated risk, but what in life isn't?

Bad trips are something else, a traumatic experience, but people get over them. Usually quite quickly. Education will dramatically reduce bad trips - users who know how to deal with them when they start do not have truly scary experiences. It is like taking a painkiller when you feel the first inklings of a headache, rather than waiting until it takes hold.

And you can turf MDMA (ecstasy) out of that list. It isn't a genuine hallucinogen.

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.

The addictiveness of heroin is wildly exaggerated. Sex isn't addictive. Sex addiction is an invention not a real addiction.

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.

Hardly a valid comparison. Sex is a biological drive which has nothing to do with addiction. Even if you've never had sex your body is going to tell you that you should.

Once you've tried heroin it is quite easy to imagine not trying it again. Never listen to current or ex-junkies. Every ex-addict and current addict will tell you whatever drug they use is super-mega-addictive and impossible to quit. What about the majority of users who quietly go about their lives using these same drugs regularly with no trouble whatsoever? You might as well take advice on alcohol from an alcohol junkie.

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.

If you don't continue you go to sleep. You won't feel miserably depressed, just tired. Much of the down is due to lack of food and sleep. To get an idea of how you might feel try staying awake for 48 hours eating and drinking almost nothing. Throw in some vigorous physical activity too.

Used sensibly amphetamine, specifically d-amphetamine (tradename Dexedrine) is a very useful drug. Problems were also much lower when you could easily get it from your local doctor. Once it became hard to get legally trade went underground, the authorities spent time and money trying to crush it, dl-methamphetamine took over, offering a higher profit margin, and eventually the authorities through their continuing efforts managed to get that replaced with d-methamphetamine. So today the only amphetamine you'll typically find on the street is the strongest of them all, d-methampetamine. It is also the hardest to use sensibly. That's prohibition for you. Happens every time.

The war on drugs has been very expensive, and ultimately completely pointless. In 30 years the authorities have made absolutely no progress in stopping drug use. It doesn't surprise me. Taking drugs is just part of human nature.

[kragoh]

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).

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.

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.

�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.

"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.

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?

Ecstasy? Cocaine?

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.

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.

Liberal Media

Oh no, not the dreaded Liberal Media (tm).

[kragoh]

One thing we can agree on, drug use is here to stay. Decades of anti-drug propaganda and mass spending on law enforcement has had no noticeable effect on use or availability. Global communication has made it harder and harder for governments to keep up this propaganda. The war looks increasingly stupid. It's supporters look ever more foolish. The more we see the more we realise this state of affairs is just like living under a vicious dictator who will torture and murder you for having the wrong attitudes and beliefs.

[Mitsuo]

HelioBacter said- "noo, nooo nicotine's just a harmless neurotoxin.
do you have a clue how many people die every year of tobacco consumption?
how many legs my father as a MD has to cut off every year?"

I'm not denying that people die from tobacco consumption. People can die of too much Vitamin D, it doesn't make it a drug. Do I have a clue? Sure why not. Although YOU may call it a drug, Tobacco is not considered a drug.

Helio said- "and do you know how many people were killed by cannabis so far? NO ONE.
to reach the lethal dosage of THC, you would have to smoke tons of grass, what's physically impossible"

Hmmm, don't recall me saying anything about it killing you. Your list doesn't prove anything, other than the fact that I should watch out for stupid drivers on the road. But we all know that.

Helio- " btw, seeds can be bought practically everywhere, legally (don't know how things in the US are, but i guess you've got growshops too."

Nope. Don't assume.

Helio- "erm... yes. marijuana is a hallucinogen. maybe i just don't have as good stuff as you, but i haven't had a single hallucination, and i smoke regularily on weekends for about 3 years now"

Yes there have been claims that marijuana does that.

Helio- "ok, now you mix it up with LSD, i'm fine with that. it's the same thing anyway.
sorry but i think you don't know anything about this drug. you obviously neither have experience with it, nor have you tried to do some serious research, besides flicks like "reefer madness" from the 1930s"

Yes, LSD does that too. More often of course. No, I may not know as much about this drug than you, or other pot heads, but I have friends that have had hallucinations after smoking the stuff, and other side affects. But, I obviously have no reason to do it.

Helio said-"just my 2 cents, no offense meant"

Although, Im sure it was meant. Non taken. If you have better info than me, then be my guest and correct me.

[Mitsuo]

Kragoh- "NIDA? You may as well quote the Tooth Fairy. She does much more reliable research on the subject."
So it's not the tooth fairy? Ah man...
Dude, calm down just a little. Although I like to play devils advocate with things that the majority vote on, on this I still am against marijuana. But I already know that you guys make a great point. In some ways I am with you, and some I am not. I know my argument had flaws and fallacies. In fact, I was being redundant most of the time.

Anyway, America won't be legalizing any time soon. So I don't have to worry about it.

[Mitsuo]

Kragoh-"Oh no, not the dreaded Liberal Media"

I am guessing you have no problem with the media.

Kragoh said-"Originally Posted by Mitsuo Oda
how many more hard drug users are in the NL (since acc. to you there is some automatism on the way to hard drugs)"

No I didn't say that......
then Kragoh said-"According to you actually. It is intrinsic in the gateway drug fantasy.""

Don't misquote me bud. If you would read it all the way through. You would realize that that was me quoting Bossel. Nice try though.

Anyway, your obviously a little tweeked in the head to think that it's ok to take some cocaine instead of alcohol. But to ones own right?

Have fun with your drugs Bahrain!

[heliobacter]

-> wikipedia: droge (drug, german)

"according to the WHO, a drug is any substance that is able to manipulate a living organism's functions."

furthermore, it says

"most common drugs worldwide are alcohol and nicotine, both are able to cause mental and physical addictions. a majority of drug users die because of these substances."

claiming that "tobacco" or nicotine isn't considered as a drug is just false.

and even if it's not called so, you seem to ignore the fact that it KILLS thousands and thousands of people every day. so what makes THC more dangerous in your opinion?

so please compare how many people die of too much vitamin D, and how many of tobacco consumption

next, for that hallucinogen thing:

-> wikipedia: cannabis (english this time)

it says "Auditory or visual hallucinations at high doses in some users"

ok, this point goes to you, although i know quite a few people who have tried it, and i've never heard about that. u know, some people say after drinking a certain type of water from a holy spring, they've seen the virgin mary, don't think that water should be called a hallucinogen.

and notice that i haven't insulted you in any way. this is a discussion, no need to call me names.

[Mitsuo]

Heliobacter- "ok, this point goes to you, although i know quite a few people who have tried it, and i've never heard about that. u know, some people say after drinking a certain type of water from a holy spring, they've seen the virgin mary, don't think that water should be called a hallucinogen."

Agree, I don't think the holy spring should be considered a hallucinogen either. Probably the power of suggestion.

Helio-"and notice that i haven't insulted you in any way. this is a discussion, no need to call me names."

Nope. I don't recall calling you a name in the first place. If you're referring to "pot head", It was a general statement not intended for insult. If I did insult you then I apologize.

helio-"and even if it's not called so, you seem to ignore the fact that it KILLS thousands and thousands of people every day. so what makes THC more dangerous in your opinion?"

No, I am not ignoring the fact that tobacco kills. Why bring it up? When I never said that Cannibis kills. It would just be a moot point.

Comparing the deaths of Vitamin D, and Tobacco is not necessary.

Anyway, I have already stopped my involvement on this issue in the past, because I am bored of it, and it's a waste of my time, so I will not be back in the debate. Unless I happen to read Kragoh misquote me again.

Nice talking to you, and see you in other threads? Later!

[heliobacter]

yep, this topic causes a stir everywhere it is discussed.

of course, maybe we'll be in the same team next time / next thread

[Matiasu]

I've known people who would smoke pot every day, and judging by those people I'd say there certainly are side-effects to cannabis. They all became paranoid over time and they all ended up believing in different kinds of crazy conspiracies.
I still feel it should be allowed for medical cases though.

[edao]

I often think when having this debate with people they kind of set an awfully low standard of living on themselves and their society.

You have to ask yourself who wants to live in a world where people at every opportunity are wanting to intoxicate themselves? Who wants a parent to be drunk or their children to be stoned.

If you want to live a good life and set high standards for yourself and your children don't be weak! Drugs are for loosers and wasters, alcohol is a luxury product and should be consumed as such.

In the UK city centres on a Friday and Saturday night are a disgrace because people abuse alcohol to the point it has become accepted as part of our culture.

[Reinaert]

Well.. edao... It depends on how you see society.

If you are liberal, than every human being should be able to decide for himself.
But the liberals are not keen on drugs...

The socialists don't want it either. The idea is that cannabis and other drugs make people only more stupid than they are already.

Who like drugs? Yes, the conservatives.

The masses are doped with religion, drugs, and sex and TV.

(Listen to John Lennon.. Working Class Hero)

[Rastko Pocesta]

Both cannabis and LSD, along with many other substances which possession is now punishable, shall be legalized. Check out Sir Ian Thomas Gilmore.

[Franco]

If tobacco and alcohol are legal then cannabis should be legal too. All drugs should be legal in fact.

[clark85]

Interesting thought. Making it legal in all European countries would be an idea. You could generate profits from official businesses and taxes, actually help those people very addicted (as with alcohol) better and controll those who just rarely use it.

But the political chances for this to happen are probably very very low.

[himagain]

YES, cannabis is only harmful to the addictive personality. But then, so are alcohol and tobacco.

[Taharqa]

Banning weed is as stupid as banning alcohol. It's all about the taxes and nothing more.

[Riccardo]

Yes, just don't do it while working or before driving! =D

[Brett142]

If you look at alcohol, especially in the UK where binge drinking is a problem, look at how people act, how they speak to others, and how they compose themselves in public. They abuse people verbally, physically and mentally, they seem to lose all respect for their surroundings and themselves. Most rapes happen when the women (and men) are drunk. I am perfectly comfortable with saying that alcohol is by FAR (with the exception of maybe heroin and cocaine) the WORST thing people take to intoxicate themselves. People who smoke weed are chilled, relaxed and would never dream of acting the way people do on alcohol. Same goes for ecstasy, amphetamines etc.

If I had my way, alcohol would be banned and other drugs would be legal, especially cannabis.