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

[Triple Zero]

http://www.ncjrs.gov/ondcppubs/publications/pdf/mj_rev.pdf

The data is on page 10.

and I was thinking you were going to link me to some actual objective scientific reporting. this piece of crap is even worse than I expected. "confirmation bias" isn't even cutting it. I was gonna give it the benefit of the doubt, cause you know, every report on both sides has some confirmation bias.

but this is isn't merely a mistake of weighing certain information more than others, this is just plain old propaganda.

I have no other words for it.

If I'm going to take all this information on face value, the only thing I can conclude is that due to some kind of common genetic or geographical defect, Americans are incredibly, significantly less able to deal with any kinds of soft drugs than the Dutch.

Or it could be some creative interpretation of numbers (it's not confirmation bias if you do it on purpose, maybe you wouldn't call it lying, but I wouldn't trust that particular source anymore for its objectivity).

I will quote some of the lulz, it's almost as good as your average christian fundie, except you replace God with Lack of Drugs:

"Mentions of marijuana use in emergency room visits have risen 176 percent since 1994, surpassing those of heroin."
" In 2001, marijuana was a contributing factor in more than 110,000 emergency department visits in the United States." -- sounds like people freaking on a paranoia trip to me? This hardly happens in the Netherlands because people know if weed makes you feel crappy, you're not gonna die. Even cops will tell you this.

Ok question what do they actually mean when they say "cannabis abuse"? Cause I know some people who went through episodes I would call "cannabis abuse" and a number of the things stated in these articles (I'm checking the sources, some of this stuff is pretty far out), would apply to them, but definitely not to your casual cannabis user. I am strongly suspecting they are conflating the two whenever convenient, but also not whenever inconvenient.

"Marijuana can cause the heart rate, normally 70 to 80 beats per minute, to increase by 20 to 50 beats per minute or, in some cases, even to double."

whaaat? "even to double" reminds me of Fox's "she even bought a DOG!!!", wtf does that mean, is it marihuana or panic that causes this? (yes I checked the reference, it's a book several decades old, I could get it from torrent though).

Anyone who takes this "evidence" seriously would probably get a heart attack from the dihydrogen monoxide webpage.

Correlation is not causation, is pretty much the mantra whoever wrote this should get tattooed on their inner eyelids.

Also, if this flyer had been about cocaine or heroine, they'd actually have something to write about. Negative effects of those and addictive qualities are actually real.

" The median amount of marijuana involved in the convic-
tion in federal court of marijuana-only possession
offenders in 1997 was 115 pounds. In other words, half
of all federal prisoners convicted just for marijuana pos-
session were arrested with quantities exceeding 115
pounds."

-----> this fact leads to the following quote:

"The vast majority of
those behind bars for
marijuana offenses are
mid- and large-scale
traffickers and
distributors."

how is "half" now the same as "vast majority" ? majority, sure, but why "vast"? do they even care about believability?

also the fact that they now suddenly use the "median" shows that they indeed do know their statistics. leading me to the conclusion they only apply it when it's in the line of policy.

I'm gonna skip to the part where they talk about the Netherlands now, I can't stand this shit.

"The “nirvana” offered by the Dutch example is extremely dubious; in fact, the Dutch
government is now reconsidering its laws and policies regarding drugs."

Nirvana? it's in quotes, but from who?

aaaanyway here's the quote:

ä After coffee shops started selling marijuana and use of the drug became
normalized, marijuana use between 1984 and 1996 nearly tripled—from
15 percent to 44 percent—among 18- to 20-year-old Dutch youth.

While our nation’s consumption of cocaine has decreased by 70 percent over
the past 15 years, cocaine consumption in Europe (primarily Western Europe)
has increased.

.. so I have no idea why they picked 1984?

and what's this about cocaine? they don't SAY it, but they do IMPLY that the cocaine consumption in western europe has increased BECAUSE of the availability of marihuana? that is utter fucking shit. especially in the netherlands. people that do cocaine are POOPED upon, POOPED i tell you. while marihuana is .. .well .. nearly like beer.

sorry RWHN but this flyer just pisses me off. I hope that the rest of the "information" you get is actually worth it's weight in shit.

[East Coast Hustle]

Kids who smoke weed now are breaking the law already.  Changing the law to allow adults to smoke weed will somehow increase the number of kids willing to break the law?

Essentially yes.  Because since it is no longer illegal for adults to possess marijuana, more of them will possess it.  This means more homes with marijuana in them.  This means more homes with children with marijuana in them.  The temptation per household, if you will, will increase.  

I know this is horribly unscientific, but...

I know alot of people. ALOT of people. I have acquaintances in most states in the US, several provinces of canada, and several Caribbean islands. I would guess that I am personally acquainted with literally over 10,000 people.

and I don't know one single person that currently doesn't smoke weed that would start smoking weed if it were legal.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Kids who smoke weed now are breaking the law already.  Changing the law to allow adults to smoke weed will somehow increase the number of kids willing to break the law?

Essentially yes.  Because since it is no longer illegal for adults to possess marijuana, more of them will possess it.  This means more homes with marijuana in them.  This means more homes with children with marijuana in them.  The temptation per household, if you will, will increase.  

I know this is horribly unscientific, but...

I know alot of people. ALOT of people. I have acquaintances in most states in the US, several provinces of canada, and several Caribbean islands. I would guess that I am personally acquainted with literally over 10,000 people.

and I don't know one single person that currently doesn't smoke weed that would start smoking weed if it were legal.

I have some friends who would start smoking again, if it weren't illegal... in every case though it has far more to do with their job , than the actual status of legality.

[AFK]

http://www.ncjrs.gov/ondcppubs/publications/pdf/mj_rev.pdf

The data is on page 10.

and I was thinking you were going to link me to some actual objective scientific reporting. this piece of crap is even worse than I expected. "confirmation bias" isn't even cutting it. I was gonna give it the benefit of the doubt, cause you know, every report on both sides has some confirmation bias.

but this is isn't merely a mistake of weighing certain information more than others, this is just plain old propaganda.

I have no other words for it.

If I'm going to take all this information on face value, the only thing I can conclude is that due to some kind of common genetic or geographical defect, Americans are incredibly, significantly less able to deal with any kinds of soft drugs than the Dutch.

Or it could be some creative interpretation of numbers (it's not confirmation bias if you do it on purpose, maybe you wouldn't call it lying, but I wouldn't trust that particular source anymore for its objectivity).

I will quote some of the lulz, it's almost as good as your average christian fundie, except you replace God with Lack of Drugs:

"Mentions of marijuana use in emergency room visits have risen 176 percent since 1994, surpassing those of heroin."
" In 2001, marijuana was a contributing factor in more than 110,000 emergency department visits in the United States." -- sounds like people freaking on a paranoia trip to me? This hardly happens in the Netherlands because people know if weed makes you feel crappy, you're not gonna die. Even cops will tell you this.

Ok question what do they actually mean when they say "cannabis abuse"? Cause I know some people who went through episodes I would call "cannabis abuse" and a number of the things stated in these articles (I'm checking the sources, some of this stuff is pretty far out), would apply to them, but definitely not to your casual cannabis user. I am strongly suspecting they are conflating the two whenever convenient, but also not whenever inconvenient.

"Marijuana can cause the heart rate, normally 70 to 80 beats per minute, to increase by 20 to 50 beats per minute or, in some cases, even to double."

whaaat? "even to double" reminds me of Fox's "she even bought a DOG!!!", wtf does that mean, is it marihuana or panic that causes this? (yes I checked the reference, it's a book several decades old, I could get it from torrent though).

Anyone who takes this "evidence" seriously would probably get a heart attack from the dihydrogen monoxide webpage.

Correlation is not causation, is pretty much the mantra whoever wrote this should get tattooed on their inner eyelids.

Also, if this flyer had been about cocaine or heroine, they'd actually have something to write about. Negative effects of those and addictive qualities are actually real.

" The median amount of marijuana involved in the convic-
tion in federal court of marijuana-only possession
offenders in 1997 was 115 pounds. In other words, half
of all federal prisoners convicted just for marijuana pos-
session were arrested with quantities exceeding 115
pounds."

-----> this fact leads to the following quote:

"The vast majority of
those behind bars for
marijuana offenses are
mid- and large-scale
traffickers and
distributors."

how is "half" now the same as "vast majority" ? majority, sure, but why "vast"? do they even care about believability?

also the fact that they now suddenly use the "median" shows that they indeed do know their statistics. leading me to the conclusion they only apply it when it's in the line of policy.

I'm gonna skip to the part where they talk about the Netherlands now, I can't stand this shit.

"The "nirvana" offered by the Dutch example is extremely dubious; in fact, the Dutch
government is now reconsidering its laws and policies regarding drugs."

Nirvana? it's in quotes, but from who?

aaaanyway here's the quote:

ä After coffee shops started selling marijuana and use of the drug became
normalized, marijuana use between 1984 and 1996 nearly tripled—from
15 percent to 44 percent—among 18- to 20-year-old Dutch youth.

While our nation's consumption of cocaine has decreased by 70 percent over
the past 15 years, cocaine consumption in Europe (primarily Western Europe)
has increased.

.. so I have no idea why they picked 1984?

and what's this about cocaine? they don't SAY it, but they do IMPLY that the cocaine consumption in western europe has increased BECAUSE of the availability of marihuana? that is utter fucking shit. especially in the netherlands. people that do cocaine are POOPED upon, POOPED i tell you. while marihuana is .. .well .. nearly like beer.

sorry RWHN but this flyer just pisses me off. I hope that the rest of the "information" you get is actually worth it's weight in shit.

The only point of me posting that link was for the specific citation about the increase in marijuana use in the Netherlands.  It wasn't for the rest of it.  If I had access to the actual article that contained that particular piece of information I would have posted that instead.  But, I don't, and so, I didn't.

[AFK]

Kids who smoke weed now are breaking the law already.  Changing the law to allow adults to smoke weed will somehow increase the number of kids willing to break the law?

Essentially yes.  Because since it is no longer illegal for adults to possess marijuana, more of them will possess it.  This means more homes with marijuana in them.  This means more homes with children with marijuana in them.  The temptation per household, if you will, will increase.  

I know this is horribly unscientific, but...

I know alot of people. ALOT of people. I have acquaintances in most states in the US, several provinces of canada, and several Caribbean islands. I would guess that I am personally acquainted with literally over 10,000 people.

and I don't know one single person that currently doesn't smoke weed that would start smoking weed if it were legal.

I didn't say more adults would start using, though I do believe some would, I said more would possess it.  If it is legal to have marijuana there is no need to hide marijuana or to only buy as much as you are going to use.  There will be more access points for kids and those access points, because it is no longer illegal, will tend to have larger supplies.  I mean, look at alcohol and cigarettes.  Adults buy both by the cases and the cartons.  You think that would be different for marijuana? 

[AFK]

Kids who smoke weed now are breaking the law already.  Changing the law to allow adults to smoke weed will somehow increase the number of kids willing to break the law?

Essentially yes.  Because since it is no longer illegal for adults to possess marijuana, more of them will possess it.  This means more homes with marijuana in them.  This means more homes with children with marijuana in them.  The temptation per household, if you will, will increase. 

So you believe it is beneficial to legislate rights away based on temptation?

I can think up a few other examples.

As I mentioned, it is arbitrary.  In the case of marijuana, yes, I believe it is beneficial to children and society to choose the welfare of the child over the pleasure of an adult.  It's marijuana.  It isn't healthcare.  It isn't the right to work.  It isn't the right to vote.  It isn't the right to bear arms.  It's marijuana. 

Sorry folks, I got errands to run.  I'll pick this up another time....

1.  It's amendment IX.

2.  "Arbitrary" makes shitty law, as we've seen.  The drug laws have always been arbitrary, and they became draconian later.

3.  Society has no rights.  Only individuals do.  I am not willing to concede my rights because someone else cannot control their children.

Well, unless you legalize all substances, there will always be an arbitrary line in the sand.  So then the argument becomes where the line is drawn.  You legalize marijuana and then you'll have heroin users advocating for the legalization of heroin talking about responsible users, etc., etc.,  Where would it stop? 

Society is made up of individuals.  The actions of individuals in society impact the entire society which means it impacts other individuals in that society.  Look at health care.  The decision of someone to not get health insurance and then ending up in the emergency room impacts us all in higher premiums.  Kids getting hooked on marijuana and dropping out of school impacts all of us.  And each additional kids who gets hooked only adds to those costs.  It's monetary AND societal. 

I've not seen a single legitimate cost/benefit analysis that would lead me to believe there would be a net societal and monetary gain if we legalized marijuana.  I've read pieces that suggest it would be a huge boon because of tax revenues.  I have serious doubts about that.  And there are no guarantees those revenues would go towards any kind of treatment or prevention.  So the state makes more money, more kids use, but no more services?  That is a recipe for failure. 

[fomenter]

I didn't say more adults would start using, though I do believe some would, I said more would possess it.  If it is legal to have marijuana there is no need to hide marijuana or to only buy as much as you are going to use.  There will be more access points for kids and those access points, because it is no longer illegal, will tend to have larger supplies.  I mean, look at alcohol and cigarettes.  Adults buy both by the cases and the cartons.  You think that would be different for marijuana?  

more would posses it ? any one who wants to have some does right now, and who buys only as much as they are going to use now? its a pain to go to the dealer a risk to bring it home  people would buy more and stash it because of prohibition...(or the amounts would be the same)


also responsible adults keep there adult drinks and smokes out of the kids hands, my dad hide his alcohol in plain site... in the bar... and we didn't get drunk off it just because it was possible, we did what the kids of people who raise there kids do and left it alone (and for good reason..)

[Triple Zero]

Before we continue this, though... I want to apologize to you. I come to PD.com for the LULZ and the interesting discussions. I would HATE to have to talk about data security all the time. I don't come here to preach legalization or convert bad punsters. If the discussion is draining to you and if its detracting from your enjoyment of pd.com then let's stop the conversation.

also, THIS. if it bothers you, of course I don't care that much about the drug policy in America, we could be discussing non-drug related discordia topics instead, that's okay (I can tell it's stressing you out at least somewhat)

hey anyway, the thing I was thinking of all the time while reading that flyer was this flyer from the Dutch government while I was in highschool (1997). and w00t I did manage to find it!!

http://www.vocm-online.nl/Bestanden/Flyer_nl.pdf

it's not much text, so translation is here:

Hash en Wiet, wat weet je wel, wat weet je niet?

"Hash and Weed, what do you know, and what don't you know?"

1. A joint does not solve your problems. Cannabis is used for your enjoyment.

2. Hashish and weed come in different strengths/potencies. Ask the coffeeshop employees about this. If you don't know how strong it is, take one puff and wait a few minutes before continuing.

3. Combining alcohol and cannabis can give unpredictable results. So be careful, especially if you don't have a lot of experience using cannabis.

4. Cannabis can give you heart-palpitations, sweating or nausea. This is uncomfortable, but not dangerous. Sometimes you can feel ill or frightened. Don't panic, find a quiet place and drink or eat something sweet. After an hour, the worst will be over. If the symptoms persist, get help from a doctor ( = general practitioner).

5. Cannabis temporarily influences your logical reasoning, memory and concentration/attentionspan. So do not use it when you have to go to school, work or take part in traffic.

6. Do not smoke if you are pregnant. Only use it when you feel good.

7. You can develop a dependency on hash or weed. So keep a close eye on how much you use.

8. Do you use (medical) drugs? Ask your general practitioner first.

9. Smoking cannabis releases dangerous substances such as tar and carbon monoxide. Therefore it is not advised to inhale deeply and long. Neither is this necessary because the active ingredients are absorbed in your lungs very quickly.

10. It is illegal to bring cannabis or cannabis-products to other countries.

11. Sale of small amounts of cannabis in the Netherlands is only allowed in officially tolerated coffeeshops. Therefore, do never buy your cannabis on the street, but always buy your hash or weed from one of the officially tolerated coffeeshops. That way, you know what you get, with honest advice.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Well, unless you legalize all substances, there will always be an arbitrary line in the sand.  So then the argument becomes where the line is drawn.  You legalize marijuana and then you'll have heroin users advocating for the legalization of heroin talking about responsible users, etc., etc.,  Where would it stop?

It stops when your activity directly endangers others.  I gave LSD and PCP as examples earlier.  

Society is made up of individuals. 

And each individual has rights.  SCOTUS has determined (correctly, I think) that there are no "group rights".

The actions of individuals in society impact the entire society which means it impacts other individuals in that society. 

So when do we ban driving?

I've not seen a single legitimate cost/benefit analysis that would lead me to believe there would be a net societal and monetary gain if we legalized marijuana.

What's that got to do with my rights?

  I've read pieces that suggest it would be a huge boon because of tax revenues.  I have serious doubts about that. 

Irrelevant to my argument.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Kids who smoke weed now are breaking the law already.  Changing the law to allow adults to smoke weed will somehow increase the number of kids willing to break the law?

Essentially yes.  Because since it is no longer illegal for adults to possess marijuana, more of them will possess it.  This means more homes with marijuana in them.  This means more homes with children with marijuana in them.  The temptation per household, if you will, will increase.  

So you believe it is beneficial to legislate rights away based on temptation?

I can think up a few other examples.

As I mentioned, it is arbitrary.  In the case of marijuana, yes, I believe it is beneficial to children and society to choose the welfare of the child over the pleasure of an adult.  It's marijuana.  It isn't healthcare.  It isn't the right to work.  It isn't the right to vote.  It isn't the right to bear arms.  It's marijuana.  

Sorry folks, I got errands to run.  I'll pick this up another time....

1.  It's amendment IX.

2.  "Arbitrary" makes shitty law, as we've seen.  The drug laws have always been arbitrary, and they became draconian later.

3.  Society has no rights.  Only individuals do.  I am not willing to concede my rights because someone else cannot control their children.

Well, unless you legalize all substances, there will always be an arbitrary line in the sand.  So then the argument becomes where the line is drawn.  You legalize marijuana and then you'll have heroin users advocating for the legalization of heroin talking about responsible users, etc., etc.,  Where would it stop?  

Well, though its definitely utopian... I would argue that it shouldn't stop... the use of drugs shouldn't be illegal. Doing illegal things to get drugs, or while you're on drugs should be. INCLUDING contributing to the delinquency of a minor.

Society is made up of individuals.  The actions of individuals in society impact the entire society which means it impacts other individuals in that society.  Look at health care.  The decision of someone to not get health insurance and then ending up in the emergency room impacts us all in higher premiums.  Kids getting hooked on marijuana and dropping out of school impacts all of us.  And each additional kids who gets hooked only adds to those costs.  It's monetary AND societal.  

I've not seen a single legitimate cost/benefit analysis that would lead me to believe there would be a net societal and monetary gain if we legalized marijuana.  I've read pieces that suggest it would be a huge boon because of tax revenues.  I have serious doubts about that.  And there are no guarantees those revenues would go towards any kind of treatment or prevention.  So the state makes more money, more kids use, but no more services?  That is a recipe for failure.  

http://www.drugscience.org/Archive/bcr4/Lost%20Taxes%20and%20Other%20Costs%20of%20Marijuana%20Laws.pdf

What are your thoughts on this report (I assume its biased at least somewhat but it appears to have more numbers than others I read)? It  claims that the drug war (marijuana specific) has a cost of $180.8 billion annually if we add the average estimates for additional tax income, that would be near $200,000,000,000 annually. If we also include loss of wages due to jail time, getting fired for being arrested, having a felony on your record etc... well, that seems like a helluva lot of money every year.
(quoted wrong bit will fix numbers later)

I don't think economics should be the primary driver in this debate, but I don't quite understand your position that there would not be a monetary gain.

I'd also be interested to know how easily accessible most of your kids find marijuana to be. This report claims 2 in 3 10th graders find it 'easy' in the current system.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

http://www.vocm-online.nl/Bestanden/Flyer_nl.pdf

DAMN!

[Shibboleet The Annihilator]

I've not seen a single legitimate cost/benefit analysis that would lead me to believe there would be a net societal and monetary gain if we legalized marijuana.  I've read pieces that suggest it would be a huge boon because of tax revenues.  I have serious doubts about that.  And there are no guarantees those revenues would go towards any kind of treatment or prevention.  So the state makes more money, more kids use, but no more services?  That is a recipe for failure. 

Slanket hops in because he feels like being an argumentative dick today.

Bullshit. It would still be illegal for kids and I don't know if you remember what it was like being a kid but it was way easier to acquire illegal drugs than it was to acquire alcohol (which, by the way, is one of the most dangerous drugs ever). Also, are you saying that you do not believe a new heavily taxed industry would create more revenue for the government and legitimate (read: taxable) jobs?

Additionally, it would decrease the tax burden on the general population because we wouldn't have to pay for the people imprisoned for marijuana-related offenses. Whether or not the funds go towards treatment relies on you and your fellow constituents to write letters to your representatives and/or organize a lobbying group to push for more treatment funding.

Furthermore, how do The Kids benefit from being locked up for smoking pot? All that accomplishes is giving them a criminal stigma that could affect the rest of their lives and put them on the path of being a lifelong offender because their label prevents them from earning a legitimate income?

It looks like whatever you do for a living is severely distorting your view of the situation.

[/argumentative dick]

[Triple Zero]

I didn't say more adults would start using, though I do believe some would, I said more would possess it.  If it is legal to have marijuana there is no need to hide marijuana or to only buy as much as you are going to use.  There will be more access points for kids and those access points, because it is no longer illegal, will tend to have larger supplies.  I mean, look at alcohol and cigarettes.  Adults buy both by the cases and the cartons.  You think that would be different for marijuana?

I disagree. What I have seen from people in countries where weed is illegal, is that they have much larger stashes.

Most people in the netherlands only have one or two grammes at home, cause they can go to the coffeeshop whenever they want to buy more.

When it's illegal you want to buy more, because it's such a hassle to buy. You wouldn't go to your dealer every time you want to smoke, you buy a larger stash in one go and then use it as you see fit.

[Triple Zero]

http://www.vocm-online.nl/Bestanden/Flyer_nl.pdf

DAMN!

To be fair I'm not entirely sure if this is the original, this one seems to originate from an organisation about coffeeshops in the south of NL. I couldn't find the original, but there was a government campaign with the same name "hash en wiet, wat weet je wel, wat weet je niet" (it rhymes! hihihi) and as far as I remember (it was 1997, long time ago) it contained the same kind of information.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

http://www.vocm-online.nl/Bestanden/Flyer_nl.pdf

DAMN!

To be fair I'm not entirely sure if this is the original, this one seems to originate from an organisation about coffeeshops in the south of NL. I couldn't find the original, but there was a government campaign with the same name "hash en wiet, wat weet je wel, wat weet je niet" (it rhymes! hihihi) and as far as I remember (it was 1997, long time ago) it contained the same kind of information.

I think that's a brilliant flyer for marijuana... though if I had seen it as a kid it wouldn't have changed my mind. I chose not to smoke because if I smoked pot then I wouldn't be in control of my brain and Satan or one of his demons might come in and possess me.

Apparently it was ok to drink a little sometimes though.