So, the economist and time agree: It's about fucking time to LEGALISE IT

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

legalizing pot will decrease the problems caused by the jack boots, and possibly alter the problems the drug itself causes but not in a way that makes rwhns job impossible, and while they (drug workers) are understandably convinced by the drug war information they get, that legalization will make there job impossible or much harder i suspect the opposite may be true

Based upon what evidence?  

you say your job will be much harder to impossible...
Based upon what evidence?

i cant say with any certainty (i used the words "i suspect" for a reason) -  alcohol is the best example of the benefits of doing away with prohibition the trouble caused by alcohol being illegal (cop raids, smuggling bad quality booze killing people, gang wars, political and police corruption etc etc) all decreased when prohibition was repealed, the problems of alcohol abuse are not impossible to deal with today because of it being repealed, and i suspect (no citation) the fact that its not a crime that gets you thrown in jail makes getting people to admit they have a problem easier than it would be if they were breaking the law to feed their addiction,
after prohibition the amount of under age drinking did not go into a steep climb that didn't stop till all kids became alcoholics, i don't think the increase in availability will create such a steep climb in drug use either and if it does cause an increase there are better and more effective ways to combat it than prohibition (criminalization ) of pot, such as tough penalty's for dealing to kids prohibiting advertising and educating kids for example

This is a Reasonable Motorcycle

RWHN, let me ask you a couple of questions...

1) Have you ever smoked pot? How many times? have you ever been involved with growing it commercially?

If the only way I can be seen to have a legitimate background on the subject matter is to have partaken of the subject matter then I suggest we stop discussing the subject matter.  I sincerely hope that is not the inference being made.   

Allow me, then, to make that not an inference but an outright statement.

to use one of your analogies, it would be sort of like a defensive driving class given by someone who has never driven a car.

I disagree. I don't think you have to be a stoner to say "Hey, your brain is still developing, pot will likely retard your emotional development. You probably shouldn't do it, spags." Though, I think it the naivety probably does figure into the common misunderstandings about what IS and ISN'T reasonable/possible in the drug scene.

[Telarus]

legalizing pot will decrease the problems caused by the jack boots, and possibly alter the problems the drug itself causes but not in a way that makes rwhns job impossible, and while they (drug workers) are understandably convinced by the drug war information they get, that legalization will make there job impossible or much harder i suspect the opposite may be true

Based upon what evidence?  

RWHN, I respect you and the work you do. Having said that....


Portugal.
-----
http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/news/1/12266-800000-americans-busted-annually-for-pot.html

"In Portugal, which legalized all drugs in 2001, hard drug use has showed a stunning decline while the numbers of people getting detox aid has soared, Time magazine reported last April 26th. By contrast, USA has the highest rates of drug use in the world."

-----
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-accept-the-facts-ndash-and-end-this-futile-war-on-drugs-1818167.html

Fact Three The drug war doesn't reduce drug use – but the alternatives can. Some people believe these two dark side-effects are a price worth paying if prohibition stops a significant number of people from picking up their first bong or needle. It was an understandable enough argument – until the evidence came in from countries that have experimented with ending the drug war.

On 1 July 2001, Portugal decriminalised the possession of all drugs, including heroin and cocaine. You can have and use as much as you like for your own needs, and if you are caught, the police might refer you to a rehab programme, but you will never get a criminal record. (Supplying and selling remains illegal.) The prohibitionists predicted a catastrophic rise in addiction, and even I – an instinctive legaliser – was nervous.

Now we know: overall drug use actually fell a little. As a major study by Glenn Greenwald for The Cato Institute found, among Portuguese teenagers the fall was fastest: 13-year-olds are four per cent less likely to use drugs, and 16-year-olds are six per cent less likely. As the iron law of prohibition predicts, the use of hard drugs has fallen fastest: heroin use has crashed by nearly 50 per cent among the young who were not yet addicted. The Portuguese have switched the billions that used to be spent chasing and jailing addicts to providing them with prescriptions and rehab. The number of people in drug treatment is now up by 147 per cent. Almost nobody in Portugal wants to go back. Indeed, many citizens want to take the next step: legalise supply too, and break the back of the gangs.

Portugal is no fluke. It turns out that wherever the drug laws are relaxed, drug use stays the same, or – where spending is switched to treatment – declines. Between 1972 and 1978, 11 US states decriminalised marijuana possession. The National Research Council found that the number of dope-smokers stayed the same.

-----
Greenwald, Glenn. "Drug Decriminalization in Portugal:
Lessons for Creating Fair and Successful Drug Policies." The Cato Institute. April 2, 2009. 16 Nov 2009
< http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10080 >

On July 1, 2001, a nationwide law in Portugal took effect that decriminalized all drugs, including cocaine and heroin. Under the new legal framework, all drugs were "decriminalized," not "legalized." Thus, drug possession for personal use and drug usage itself are still legally prohibited, but violations of those prohibitions are deemed to be exclusively administrative violations and are removed completely from the criminal realm. Drug trafficking continues to be prosecuted as a criminal offense.

While other states in the European Union have developed various forms of de facto decriminalization — whereby substances perceived to be less serious (such as cannabis) rarely lead to criminal prosecution — Portugal remains the only EU member state with a law explicitly declaring drugs to be "decriminalized." Because more than seven years have now elapsed since enactment of Portugal's decriminalization system, there are ample data enabling its effects to be assessed.

Notably, decriminalization has become increasingly popular in Portugal since 2001. Except for some far-right politicians, very few domestic political factions are agitating for a repeal of the 2001 law. And while there is a widespread perception that bureaucratic changes need to be made to Portugal's decriminalization framework to make it more efficient and effective, there is no real debate about whether drugs should once again be criminalized. More significantly, none of the nightmare scenarios touted by preenactment decriminalization opponents — from rampant increases in drug usage among the young to the transformation of Lisbon into a haven for "drug tourists" — has occurred.

The political consensus in favor of decriminalization is unsurprising in light of the relevant empirical data. Those data indicate that decriminalization has had no adverse effect on drug usage rates in Portugal, which, in numerous categories, are now among the lowest in the EU, particularly when compared with states with stringent criminalization regimes. Although postdecriminalization usage rates have remained roughly the same or even decreased slightly when compared with other EU states, drug-related pathologies — such as sexually transmitted diseases and deaths due to drug usage — have decreased dramatically. Drug policy experts attribute those positive trends to the enhanced ability of the Portuguese government to offer treatment programs to its citizens — enhancements made possible, for numerous reasons, by decriminalization.

This report will begin with an examination of the Portuguese decriminalization framework as set forth in law and in terms of how it functions in practice. Also examined is the political climate in Portugal both pre- and postdecriminalization with regard to drug policy, and the impetus that led that nation to adopt decriminalization.

The report then assesses Portuguese drug policy in the context of the EU's approach to drugs. The varying legal frameworks, as well as the overall trend toward liberalization, are examined to enable a meaningful comparative assessment between Portuguese data and data from other EU states.

The report also sets forth the data concerning drug-related trends in Portugal both pre- and postdecriminalization. The effects of decriminalization in Portugal are examined both in absolute terms and in comparisons with other states that continue to criminalize drugs, particularly within the EU.

The data show that, judged by virtually every metric, the Portuguese decriminalization framework has been a resounding success. Within this success lie self-evident lessons that should guide drug policy debates around the world.

[LINK TO FULL WHITE PAPER]

-----

And because I don't want to spam the board with the full contents of that, I'll quote another article that has some good numbers cited:

http://www.straight.com/article-265288/canadas-war-drugs-bucks-global-trend

This is in sharp contrast to the experience in Portugal, which the Washington, D.C.–based Cato Institute examined in a detailed report released last April. Since decriminalization in 2001, lifetime prevalence rates, which measure how many people have consumed a particular drug or drugs in their lifetime, have decreased among youth, the think tank noted in Drug Decriminalization in Portugal: Lessons for Creating Fair and Successful Drug Policies. For Portuguese aged 13 to 15 years, the rate fell from 14.1 percent in 2001 to 10.6 percent in 2006. Among those aged 16 to 18, the rate dropped from 27.6 percent to 21.6 percent.

With the fear of criminal punishment gone, more addicts have availed themselves of drug-substitution treatments. The number of people accessing these services rose from 6,040 in 1999 to 14,877 in 2003, an increase of 147 percent.

Drug-related deaths declined, from about 400 in 1999 to 290 in 2006, while newly reported HIV cases among drug users in Portugal diminished from nearly 1,400 in 2000 to about 400 six years later. New AIDS cases among the same group dropped from about 600 in 2000 to approximately 200 in 2006.

The percentage of drug addicts among newly diagnosed HIV and AIDS patients decreased over the same time. In 2001, HIV-positive drug users accounted for more than 50 percent of new HIV cases; this fell to 30 percent in 2006. Addicts diagnosed with AIDS made up almost 60 percent of AIDS patients in 2001; their percentage was cut to less than 40 percent in 2006.

[AFK]

While I'm waiting for my surveys to compile....

Err...  <i>Actually, since a lot of pot is grown using hydroponics, it wouldn't be too difficult to add extra chemicals to the marijuana by simply introducing it to the water.  The capillary action will draw the stuff right up.</i> which was in response to comments about cutting pot with something to make it stronger.

Yes, this is my speculation.  Thus the use of the word "would".  Capillary action is liquids being pulled up into plants, yes?  This is different from me saying "78% of pot growers ARE putting chemicals into water, spiking their product, killing kids, etc."  Do I think it is happening?  On some level yes.  Do I think it is widespread?  I don't have the evidence that it is widespread but I don't believe it is far-fetched to think it is happening.  But I am not engaging in the histrionic rhetoric that you seem to want to attribute to me.  

I don't want to combat you. When you say things that sound ... uhh... wrong, though I'm not gonna make it sound otherwise.

It would be nice if you could do that with facts instead of generalizations.  

To equate that to 'people putting chemicals' in your drugs is absurd. Entirely absurd.

My only point was introducing chemicals into a product that is being smoked is probably not something that is going to be beneficial to ones health.  

No, I'm basing it on the many conversations we have had on the subject here. You have used a number of 'facts' from your sources which, to be blunt, are bullshit... or at least look an smell like bullshit.

How about some specifics with specific counterpoints.  

I think kids should not do drugs and that we should educate kids so that they are smart about drugs... but I do not think its wise, smart, useful or helpful to hold the various other positions you've espoused. Not only do I disagree from a realistic position, but the philosophy that some small number of kids 'maybe not' trying pot justifies the current insane policy is downright idiotic.

Right, so change the policy.  But policies can be changed without legalizing the drug.  Law enforcement policies can be addressed.  Sentencing and punishment policies can be addressed.  The argument you seem to be proposing is all or nothing.  I don't believe that is the correct way to frame the issue.  

[AFK]

legalizing pot will decrease the problems caused by the jack boots, and possibly alter the problems the drug itself causes but not in a way that makes rwhns job impossible, and while they (drug workers) are understandably convinced by the drug war information they get, that legalization will make there job impossible or much harder i suspect the opposite may be true

Based upon what evidence?  

you say your job will be much harder to impossible...
Based upon what evidence?

Where did I say my job will be impossible? 

after prohibition the amount of under age drinking did not go into a steep climb that didn't stop till all kids became alcoholics, i don't think the increase in availability will create such a steep climb in drug use either and if it does cause an increase there are better and more effective ways to combat it than prohibition (criminalization ) of pot, such as tough penalty's for dealing to kids prohibiting advertising and educating kids for example

Well you can rest assured that if it ever were to come to fruition that marijuana was going to be legalized that I'd be in the thick of it to make sure some very severe penalties were in place for anyone dealing to minors.  And make no mistake that WILL be the case if it is ever legalized.  People will still be going to jail because of marijuana.  It will just be for different crimes.  And that would mean a father supplying his son would be going to jail.  An aunt supplying her niece would be going to jail.  So understand that legalization will have some consequences for users. 

[AFK]

RWHN, let me ask you a couple of questions...

1) Have you ever smoked pot? How many times? have you ever been involved with growing it commercially?

If the only way I can be seen to have a legitimate background on the subject matter is to have partaken of the subject matter then I suggest we stop discussing the subject matter.  I sincerely hope that is not the inference being made.  

Allow me, then, to make that not an inference but an outright statement.

to use one of your analogies, it would be sort of like a defensive driving class given by someone who has never driven a car.

So then a brain specialist who has never smoked pot has no credibility when it comes to the impact of marijuana on the brain? 

[fomenter]

after prohibition the amount of under age drinking did not go into a steep climb that didn't stop till all kids became alcoholics, i don't think the increase in availability will create such a steep climb in drug use either and if it does cause an increase there are better and more effective ways to combat it than prohibition (criminalization ) of pot, such as tough penalty's for dealing to kids prohibiting advertising and educating kids for example

Well you can rest assured that if it ever were to come to fruition that marijuana was going to be legalized that I'd be in the thick of it to make sure some very severe penalties were in place for anyone dealing to minors.  And make no mistake that WILL be the case if it is ever legalized.  People will still be going to jail because of marijuana.  It will just be for different crimes.  And that would mean a father supplying his son would be going to jail.  An aunt supplying her niece would be going to jail.  So understand that legalization will have some consequences for users. 

and it absolutely should have some consequences and those laws would (hopefully) be fair and based on real harm being done to others and not on fear and punishing responsible adults for things they do to themselves..

[East Coast Hustle]

RWHN, let me ask you a couple of questions...

1) Have you ever smoked pot? How many times? have you ever been involved with growing it commercially?

If the only way I can be seen to have a legitimate background on the subject matter is to have partaken of the subject matter then I suggest we stop discussing the subject matter.  I sincerely hope that is not the inference being made.   

Allow me, then, to make that not an inference but an outright statement.

to use one of your analogies, it would be sort of like a defensive driving class given by someone who has never driven a car.

So then a brain specialist who has never smoked pot has no credibility when it comes to the impact of marijuana on the brain? 

you're not a brain specialist.

however, a social worker or psychiatrist or anyone else whose profession relies on a combination of the hard scientific research done by others and the compilation of anecdotal and experiential evidence given by others would seem to be missing a large part of the picture if they were totally unfamiliar with the subject matter in a firsthand way. I'm not suggesting you should become a stoner and/or a dealer, butI am saying that you have to recognize that you are limited by your lack of firsthand knowledge of the subject matter. This applies to anything, not just drugs.

to apply this line of thinking to myself, I don't think that I know jack shit about the physiology or commercial distribution of chickens just because I know how to cook a delicious chicken dinner, and I might well cook an even tastier chicken dinner if I did.

[Kai]

I just want to say, that, as a biologist I find it completely ridiculous that someone thinks you can just stick any molecule in water and a plant will pump it up and integrate it. Plants are not simple capillary tubes, they are living networks of cells, and the vascular system is complex. Root physiology is also equally complex. They "pump up anything you put in the water" no more than a gut epithelial cell absorbs anything in the intestines, and if they do it might very well kill the plant.

The other thing. Chemicals. EVERYTHING is a chemical. Would everyone mind clarifying what they mean by chemicals in this thread? FFS, potatoes contain deadly alkaloids such as solanine and chaconine, which is why you don't fucking eat green potatoes or potato leaves. POTATOES, folks. And you still eat them. If you can't clarify what particular molecular structures you mean then I doubt you know what the fuck you are talking about when you mean chemicals.

And the last thing. Fertilizer. Phosphorous, Nitrogen, Potassium, and sometimes other salts (ions, people). You put these things in the plants water and/or soil because they are limiting resources in the environment. The plant takes these things up selectively, it doesn't take just anything up willy nilly anymore than a human does. It has pathogens, toxins, viruses and other destructive inputs to defend against, it can't afford to let just anything in. Nor can it anyway, since the stuff coming in has to fit through the proteins on the surface of the root cells.


~Kai,

Really hates the way people talk about plants sometimes.

[East Coast Hustle]

you can always count on an actual scientist to cut through large amounts of conjecture and emotionally-charged bullshit.

thanks Kai!

[Z³]

1. The argument that drug use leads to a climate of criminality is moot, because if drug use was legal the profits wouldn't be criminal.
    Throughout this thread, I've seen this argument sited several times. I'm not necessarily for the legalization of heroin or crack, given the rate of physical addiction of these things, however given the nature of cannabis I see no reason it shouldn't be legalized, thus eliminating one facet of the illegal drug market.

2. Unlike Alcohol, or Tobacco, no legitimate study has shown marijuana to have any long term harmful effects on the brain.
    IIRC, THC will temporarily bond with fat cells throughout the body, and in the brain. It does effect the brain, by bonding with cells in the brain, however unlike Alcohol these cells do not explode and die. There was a study done during the Reagan administration where they basically suffocated a bunch of monkeys and said, "hey look they're brain cells are all gone". Of course, this is because the conditions of the test. Since the test was obviously rigged, it points to a political agenda.

3. Marijuana is non-carcinogenic, there is not a single case of cancer that has been linked to marijuana.
    Yes, smoking superheated plant-matter might not be the best things for your lungs, but compared to say... tobacco, its practically harmless. Smoke inhalation of any sort isnt the best idea on a regular basis, but if I eat some pot brownies those wont give me cancer (or any other health problems as far as I know) either, whereas if I use snuff or chew, thats just as bad as smoking if not worse.

4. Marijuana is physically non-addictive.
    Sure, a person can develop a habit... but they will suffer no withdrawal symptoms whatsoever. When I cant afford to smoke pot, I dont smoke pot. When I cant afford to smoke cigarettes, I may do some pretty desperate things (like digging through my couch for change, going to the gas station with pennies, etc.) One of these things is an addiction, the other is not.

5. Compare the statistics of crime related to individuals under the influence of Alcohol to those under the influence of THC.
   Stoners aren't likely to do criminal things, they may do stupid things if they're stupid people to begin with, but they're more likely to just sit on the couch and watch bad television or play video games or whatever. Alcoholics, on the other hand, seem to be much more adventurous with their stupidity.

[Triple Zero]

this thing about Portugal is really interesting. I didn't even know they decriminalized all drugs.

weird that, cause I'd be totally against decriminalization of heroin or cocaine, but if the numbers don't lie ... heroin addiction is a horrible thing and if decriminalizing it helps less people become addicted ... hm.

[Shai Hulud]

however, a social worker or psychiatrist or anyone else whose profession relies on a combination of the hard scientific research done by others and the compilation of anecdotal and experiential evidence given by others would seem to be missing a large part of the picture if they were totally unfamiliar with the subject matter in a firsthand way. I'm not suggesting you should become a stoner and/or a dealer, butI am saying that you have to recognize that you are limited by your lack of firsthand knowledge of the subject matter. This applies to anything, not just drugs.

This reminds me of the old argument about Mary the neuroscientist, who is kept in a black and white room all her life and never experiences, but nevertheless learns literally everything there is to knows everything there is to know about the effect if color on the brain.  The question is, when she leaves the room and sees red for the first time, is she experiencing something new?

Ok, maybe it's not exactly apt, but I was reminded of it.  Also, I wanted to point out that decriminalization does not equal legalization.  I'm inclined to agree that things like heroin and cocaine possession probably better off being decriminalized but not legalized, addicts should be met with treatment and civil fines rather than jail time.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I just want to say, that, as a biologist I find it completely ridiculous that someone thinks you can just stick any molecule in water and a plant will pump it up and integrate it. Plants are not simple capillary tubes, they are living networks of cells, and the vascular system is complex. Root physiology is also equally complex. They "pump up anything you put in the water" no more than a gut epithelial cell absorbs anything in the intestines, and if they do it might very well kill the plant.

The other thing. Chemicals. EVERYTHING is a chemical. Would everyone mind clarifying what they mean by chemicals in this thread? FFS, potatoes contain deadly alkaloids such as solanine and chaconine, which is why you don't fucking eat green potatoes or potato leaves. POTATOES, folks. And you still eat them. If you can't clarify what particular molecular structures you mean then I doubt you know what the fuck you are talking about when you mean chemicals.

And the last thing. Fertilizer. Phosphorous, Nitrogen, Potassium, and sometimes other salts (ions, people). You put these things in the plants water and/or soil because they are limiting resources in the environment. The plant takes these things up selectively, it doesn't take just anything up willy nilly anymore than a human does. It has pathogens, toxins, viruses and other destructive inputs to defend against, it can't afford to let just anything in. Nor can it anyway, since the stuff coming in has to fit through the proteins on the surface of the root cells.


~Kai,

Really hates the way people talk about plants sometimes.

You said it so much better than I. Thanks!

[AFK]

RWHN, let me ask you a couple of questions...

1) Have you ever smoked pot? How many times? have you ever been involved with growing it commercially?

If the only way I can be seen to have a legitimate background on the subject matter is to have partaken of the subject matter then I suggest we stop discussing the subject matter.  I sincerely hope that is not the inference being made.   

Allow me, then, to make that not an inference but an outright statement.

to use one of your analogies, it would be sort of like a defensive driving class given by someone who has never driven a car.

So then a brain specialist who has never smoked pot has no credibility when it comes to the impact of marijuana on the brain? 

you're not a brain specialist.

however, a social worker or psychiatrist or anyone else whose profession relies on a combination of the hard scientific research done by others and the compilation of anecdotal and experiential evidence given by others would seem to be missing a large part of the picture if they were totally unfamiliar with the subject matter in a firsthand way. I'm not suggesting you should become a stoner and/or a dealer, butI am saying that you have to recognize that you are limited by your lack of firsthand knowledge of the subject matter. This applies to anything, not just drugs.

to apply this line of thinking to myself, I don't think that I know jack shit about the physiology or commercial distribution of chickens just because I know how to cook a delicious chicken dinner, and I might well cook an even tastier chicken dinner if I did.

Well I do contribute to the knowledge base as well.  But that aside, I think you are completely wrong.  I work very closely with someone in the field who is a recovering addict.  While he certainly has a compelling personal story that I do not, he will be the first to tell you that his experience hasn't given him any special ability to synthesize and present information on the topic compared to someone like myself.  

[AFK]

you can always count on an actual scientist to cut through large amounts of conjecture and emotionally-charged bullshit.

thanks Kai!

I make a couple of comments, fully disclose that it is speculation (in other words I'm not 100% sure) and it gets blown up into "large amounts of conjecture and emotionally-charged bullshit."

You know, I've been mulling over for the past few weeks whether or not I still fit in at pd.com.  This is giving me more pause for thought.  For the however many years I've been here, I've been a pretty straight arrow I think.  I've not tended to exaggerate what people have posted or contributed, and I think I've deserved the same kind of treatment in return. 

Perhaps it is time for me to move along.  Perhaps I don't fit with this community any more.