Drugs.

[Doc.]

But legalization could come with an increase in awareness of the harms involved and also a potential decrease in the actual harm caused by the drug.

For an example of how the harm could actually be reduced; some of the weed you buy on the street these days is coated with anything from flour to fibreglass to make it weigh more so people can get more money out of selling less weed. Goodness knows what kind of harm this might be doing to someone's lungs (avoid this stuff wherever you find it, one way to tell is to put a tiny bit on your teeth and bite it, you will be able to tell if there is something on it this way). If it was legalized the people in charge could ensure quality control on their crops, no one would be mixing shit with it to make it heavier (this is especially common in cheap hash that you get on the street too).

Also as with cigarettes (at least in this country), it could be made unlawful to advertise marijuana, and it could come with the potential damages written on the packaging. I would obviously advocate having an age restriction on it. I think, it is also important to educate people about drugs in a balanced and non-biased manner - the only education I had on the matter was essentially 'drugs are bad mmmkay'.

I think a lot would be done to reduce the harm if cannabis was made legal.

Yes, additionally, it can be ensured that Marijuana was sold only to people who have been studied by medical professionals who confirm that the risk of extreme side-effects is relatively low in this particular patient (If such kind of expertise would be possible of course). This would help to inform people of what harm can smoking weed actually cause for them personally as well as it's "normal" side-effects.

 

[PeanutbutterChilli]

I'm more of a fan of decriminalisation myself since I don't see any benefit to society in punishing someone who is smoking or growing for their own personal use. Allowing personal growing alongside restricted seed sales would reduce someone's need to source the drug from more dubious sources (this covers both gangs and people cutting drugs with other things) while still giving law enforcement the ability to go after the larger scale growing operations used to support gang activities.

By "personal growing" I mean it would be limited to one female plant (similar to the Belgian policy) per person and would have to clearly not be part of a larger growing operation.

With regards to the health/impact to society thing I personally don't condone the use of the drug but I don't feel that people who are using the plant for their own use should be punished,especially not with jail time and nor do I think it is wise to encourage them by disallowing personal growing to buy from gangs. While keeping the current laws in place with regards to smuggling and larger operations,allowing personal growth and limited seed sales to 18+ citizens without any criminal convictions the idea would be to gradually make illegal cultivation of marijuana unprofitable without making people criminals for what they choose to smoke.

 

[MRaverz]

Being a diabetic, I know much about carbohydrates and I know better than to use "sugar'" as a catch-all word for carbohydrates. For example, fiber isn't digested so it's a "null" carb and shouldn't be added to carb totals.

And I would need you to provide extensive studies that proved that marijuana was the cause of depression, clinical anxiety, bi polar disorder and schizophrenia. Without a direct link shown in several studies and without sufficient evidence to prove they would not have these disorders without marijuana, I take those claims as being very dubious considering the habitual misrepresentation of drugs in the media and by government agencies.

I would also prefer the studies be done by as neutral a lab/organization as possible.

Obviously it's only anecdotal, but I know not a single person who has had an adverse side affect from cannabis use. People like Tommy Chong, a life-long smoker, are still in amazing health and of very sound mind. I mean, hell, look at your CD case or MP3 folder. A good chunk of those people are drug users and I bet many of them are perfectly fine.

And actually, due to Coca-cola having more sugar in it than a person should consume in a given day, it can and usually will lead to obesity and obesity can lead to many of the same problems you claim cannabis can lead to.

Compare the number of people who die a year from obesity to the number of people who die a year smoking pot. You're going to have millions to zero.

List of studies linking cannabis use to mental disorders: http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=studies+linking+cannabis+use+to+mental+disorders&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart

The first study is outlined as follows:

Abstract
Objective: To determine whether cannabis use in adolescence predisposes to higher rates of depression and anxiety in young adulthood.

Design: Seven wave cohort study over six years.

Setting: 44 schools in the Australian state of Victoria.

Participants: A statewide secondary school sample of 1601 students aged 14-15 followed for seven years.

Main outcome measure: Interview measure of depression and anxiety (revised clinical interview schedule) at wave 7.

Results: Some 60% of participants had used cannabis by the age of 20; 7% were daily users at that point. Daily use in young women was associated with an over fivefold increase in the odds of reporting a state of depression and anxiety after adjustment for intercurrent use of other substances (odds ratio 5.6, 95% confidence interval 2.6 to 12). Weekly or more frequent cannabis use in teenagers predicted an approximately twofold increase in risk for later depression and anxiety (1.9, 1.1 to 3.3) after adjustment for potential baseline confounders. In contrast, depression and anxiety in teenagers predicted neither later weekly nor daily cannabis use.

Conclusions: Frequent cannabis use in teenage girls predicts later depression and anxiety, with daily users carrying the highest risk. Given recent increasing levels of cannabis use, measures to reduce frequent and heavy recreational use seem warranted.

On the issue of coke, are you sure your facts are correct? There seems to be no recommended daily allowance, although some suggest about 90g. A 250ml serving of coke contains 26.5g.

Additionally, your unfounded presumptions that a government-linked study would be unreliable are just that - unfounded. Do you have a reason to believe that a government-linked study would actually be biased either way? Without speculation of course.

 

[MRaverz]

No, I'm not. I'm saying that the average joe doesn't know all the facts about substances and is likely to make mistakes. Dangerous mistakes which could be prevented.

Stuff religion, none of us believe that and it's beside the point. Those who cause harm due to blasphemy are those who try to harm those who do it.


Blasphemy is an act, drugs are a substance. One cannot prohibit access to a dangerous act, but they can prevent access to a dangerous substance.

Your argument is essentially on the level of 'bleach tastes nice, therefore I'll drink it - even if it damages me'. My argument is 'people don't always realise that bleach is dangerous - we should therefore prevent it's spread as much as we can, inform people of the dangers so that people don't end up dying because they were misinformed and help those who are addicted to drinking bleach'. If you are aware that bleach can harm you, yet still drink it for the taste - then that is an example of stupidity. If I were in a position where I could save you from your own stupidity, and thus save your life, it would be wrong of me to allow you to seriously harm yourself for the sake of liberty. If you wanted to drink something that tastes nice, go for ribena. If you want to harm yourself, jump off a bridge. These acts are more direct to the desire and it would be your freedom which allowed you to do them. One cannot be stupid enough to not think 'if I fall from this bridge, I'll die' so that is a liberty which need not be prevented.

Essentially, if harm is a dangerous side effect which does not outweigh the positives and is not obviously apparent - such an act should be prevented if I have the power to do so. If harm is an obvious effect so that the person in question does the act so as to cause harm, they are not at risk of doing this act without realising and as such the act should not be prevented.

I am for the prevention of harmful side effects which would are not obvious, not deliberate acts.

But legalization could come with an increase in awareness of the harms involved and also a potential decrease in the actual harm caused by the drug.

For an example of how the harm could actually be reduced; some of the weed you buy on the street these days is coated with anything from flour to fibreglass to make it weigh more so people can get more money out of selling less weed. Goodness knows what kind of harm this might be doing to someone's lungs (avoid this stuff wherever you find it, one way to tell is to put a tiny bit on your teeth and bite it, you will be able to tell if there is something on it this way). If it was legalized the people in charge could ensure quality control on their crops, no one would be mixing shit with it to make it heavier (this is especially common in cheap hash that you get on the street too).

Also as with cigarettes (at least in this country), it could be made unlawful to advertise marijuana, and it could come with the potential damages written on the packaging. I would obviously advocate having an age restriction on it. I think, it is also important to educate people about drugs in a balanced and non-biased manner - the only education I had on the matter was essentially 'drugs are bad mmmkay'.

I think a lot would be done to reduce the harm if cannabis was made legal.

Whether a drug is legal or not does not affect the level of education which can be distributed on the issue.

Yes, legalisation of a drug could result in a purer result for the drug itself. However, the health service is there to pick up after these people make their mistakes. The government holds the responsibility to protect it's citizens if it is able to, in this case via education and prohibition. In the case of 'a few drug dealers may mix their supplies with x, y or z' this is what the police force is for, to ensure that it is not dealt out.

The main thing isn't necessarily the results (though they are important), but the message that is being sent out and the responsibility upon the government to not allow people to harm themselves out of their own stupidity.

In the case of the warning signs on cigarette boxes, they don't work - people read them, scoff and continue inhaling god knows how many poisons. We should also agree that age restrictions don't work and so including them would be an unnecessary expense.

 

[Your Funny Uncle]

OK... I've been away at TAM over the weekend so I've missed the fun in this thread. My original point was not about whether drugs are harmful and whether people should or shouldn't take them. As it happens, Cannabis is less harmful than Alcohol or tobacco according to a recent study.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/nov/02/david-nutt-dangerous-drug-list

My point though is that criminalising drug use doesn't stop it. You may think that something SHOULD be banned but enforcement of such policies has been shown time and again to be ineffective. Drugs exist. Their effects are known and their will always be people looking to experiment with these effects.

All the anti-drug laws and raids and such have not stopped people from taking them, so we must assume that to effectively control their use a far greater investment would be required. Do we as a society want to spend the huge amounts needed to actually make prevention policies effective? I don't think so. In an ideal world maybe we'd ban all dangerous drugs, but this is NOT and ideal world. It is simply impractical to ban drugs unless you want to invest VAST amounts of money and resources into doing so. Far more than is the case currently.

The question then becomes how do you minimise suffering due not just to the taking of drugs but to the ancillary violence that comes with their trafficking and illicit sale. These problems are immense, not only in the countries where the majority of the drugs are consumed but in countries where they are produced and those which lie along trafficking routes.

This is why I say legalise them and sell them at chemists/drugstores in plain packaging (no advertising or brands.) We could then spend the money saved from the policing bill on more effective education as to their effects and better treatment for those who have suffered at their hands. I'm sure this approach would have its problems, but I'm finding it hard to imagine them being much worse than what we currently face.

 

[Zerosix]

If you don't believe drugs have done good things for us, then go home and burn all your records, all your tapes, and all your CDs because every one of those artists who have made brilliant music and enhanced your lives? RrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrEAL fucking high on drugs. The Beatles were so fucking high they let Ringo sing a few songs

A wise man once told me to not chase a high I could not naturally achieve. I ignored that man!

IMO We should legalise drugs, slap warning signs on them (like we do with cigs and are thinking about doing with booze) and sell them at lecienced chemists where their distribution can be controlled.

Crimilising drugs makes criminals out people who just want to enjoys themselves, wastes lots of police time and money and gives power to the drug dealers.

Yes, there are side-effects and some people with addictive personallities will have to be looked after. But we get this with everything in life. There are side-effects from watching too much tv, eating too much, and even legal prescription drugs. For some reason or another, a range people develop addictions to these normal legalised things. As long as people are properly educated on the matter, there shouldn't be a problem.

 

[Laurens]

The main argument for the harm in marijuana is that it might cause psychological damage. I think marijuana should, if legalized be sold with detailed information about the risks and how to use the drug responsibly, not just DRUGS ARE BAD written in bold on the packaging. Something like leaflet containing the following info and more:

Smoking marijuana can be harmful to your lungs and may pose risk to your health, you may wish to consider ingesting it orally to reduce the harm posed by smoking. One would be advised to use caution when ingesting marijuana orally, because the effects are less easy to control in this method, however it can achieve the same effect as smoking, in smaller doses. At higher doses one may experience more extreme effects. Discretion is advised.

A percentage of people who experience mental health problems have been shown to use marijuana, however it is not currently known whether marijuana causes mental health problems, or whether people with mental health problems are more inclined towards using the substance. If you feel that you are experiencing mental health issues, we advise that you discontinue your use of cannabis and consult a mental health professional.

One might experience negative effects, such as paranoia when under the influence of marijuana, we advise that you take care about how much you consume. Where you are and who you are with can also lead to feelings of paranoia, and for this reason we would advise that you are somewhere that you feel comfortable, with people you are comfortable being around. If you experience extreme paranoia, and other negative effects, we would advise discontinuing the use of marijuana, and seeking out professional health advice.

The majority of people experience positive effects from marijuana when used responsibly this can include heightened appreciation of colour, music, taste, sex and other pleasurable effects. However we advise that you use it responsibly. If you feel that you are becoming dependant upon marijuana you can contact us on 0800 420 420 to get advice on how do quit.

Something like that anyways.

 

[MRaverz]

My issue is that it's irresponsible for a government to turn a blind eye and allow the distribution of a dangerous substance. I really don't see how anybody can effectively argue against that.

@FunnyUncle: Sure, enforcement doesn't stop crime happening - but it sends out the right message. For example, rape is illegal - but it still happens. Perhaps if it was legal, it would happen less - but then the government would be supporting rape. In regards to alcohol and smoking being more dangerous (something which is disputed), I have already addressed that I feel that these substances should also be prohibited. I feel that their positives, do not outweigh the negatives. (Alcohol is a more complex issue because it's so socially engrained, yet to get into that would distract from the topic at hand so I'll simply over-generalise my view there)
Essentially the important thing is the message and stance, not necessarily the results - there will always be those who break laws. A responsible government can not justify allowing harm to come upon those who are misinformed or peer-pressured into things.

@Zerosix: "criminals out of people who just want to have a good time" - Sorry officer, I did murder the bloke - but I was just doing it to have a good time.
The benefits of food, tv and medicine far outweigh the possible negative effects. They are therefore justifiably legal.
Warning labels do not work and education doesn't work well enough.

@Laurens: What you are supporting is a negligent government who is willing to put their citizens at risk for the sake of them being unable to put up with reality as it is. You talk about heightened pleasure of sex, enjoyment of music etc. - but why should these be more enjoyable, if anything you sound like you're being greedy. Music isn't enough as it is, so you must enjoy it more and more and more. I, for one, can appreciate music but don't break down if I can't - there is no reason why you should not be able to do the same. To feel that you need some form of boost to your enjoyment sounds to me as if, really, you don't care about music, taste, colour etc. - so why force yourself to? After all, surely you're changing who you are as a person?
In fact, this chain of thought can get pretty dangerous as there must be a point where an individual would rather lay at home 'enjoying music' than caring for another individual. What level of social destruction can be justified by this liberty?

 

[Your Funny Uncle]

The rape analogy is silly because rape is a crime involving one person harming another. You'd perhaps have been more effective if you'd used attempted suicide or self-harm as an example but those crimes justifiably do not carry the same punishment as they are directly harming no-one but the criminal. As I think I said in a previous post, if as a result of drug use a person is negligent of parental responsibilities, or steals, or kills someone in a car crash, then I believe that the law should come down on them with full force.

As to the state not condoning something which is harmful, If it were as simple as banning something making it stop, I'd agree. The problem is that it's obvious to anyone who cares to look that this isn't the case. It's all very well to talk in absolutist terms about drug use being dangerous but if by "sending out the right message" you are causing more harm than you are preventing then you have to ask if this is the best course of action.

 

[MRaverz]

The rape analogy is silly because rape is a crime involving one person harming another. You'd perhaps have been more effective if you'd used attempted suicide or self-harm as an example but those crimes justifiably do not carry the same punishment as they are harming no-one but the criminal. As I think I said in a previous post, if as a result of drug use a person is negligent of parental responsibilities, or steals, or kills someone in a car crash, then I believe that the law should come down on them with full force.

As to the state not condoning something which is harmful, If it were as simple as banning something making it stop, I'd agree. The problem is that it's obvious to anyone who cares to look that this isn't the case. It's all very well to talk in absolutist terms about drug use being dangerous but if by "sending out the right message" you are causing more harm than you are preventing then you have to ask if this is the best course of action.

I know the analogy isn't perfect, but I'm addressing crime in general - not the moral aspect to why they are crimes. Therefore it doesn't matter what the law is, but the fact that a law is broken even if it is enforced is the point that I was highlighting. A law wouldn't need to exist if the crime was never committed, therefore it shouldn't be looked on as a law being there to stop people doing it full stop but to send out the message that it is something which shouldn't be done.

As to your second paragraph, I feel that all I can do to reply is to again stress that a law shouldn't be put in place with the thought of making something completely stop but to put people off doing it, in the case of drug use it would be to put people off using the drugs so that they don't use them and harm themselves. It's certainly not about chucking drug users in jail, it's about putting people off becoming drug users. Education and warning labels are ineffective, legalising the use of these drugs is irresponsible.

 

[Zerosix]

@Zerosix: "criminals out of people who just want to have a good time" - Sorry officer, I did murder the bloke - but I was just doing it to have a good time.

What? There's a big difference between someone being arrested for taking a recreational drug for personal use and someone killing someone else!

Warning labels do not work and education doesn't work well enough.

If we were to vastly improve the education regarding drugs so that people knew the risks, etc. Would you change your stance?

 

[Your Funny Uncle]

I know the analogy isn't perfect, but I'm addressing crime in general - not the moral aspect to why they are crimes. Therefore it doesn't matter what the law is, but the fact that a law is broken even if it is enforced is the point that I was highlighting. A law wouldn't need to exist if the crime was never committed, therefore it shouldn't be looked on as a law being there to stop people doing it full stop but to send out the message that it is something which shouldn't be done.

As to your second paragraph, I feel that all I can do to reply is to again stress that a law shouldn't be put in place with the thought of making something completely stop but to put people off doing it, in the case of drug use it would be to put people off using the drugs so that they don't use them and harm themselves. It's certainly not about chucking drug users in jail, it's about putting people off becoming drug users. Education and warning labels are ineffective, legalising the use of these drugs is irresponsible.

So then.. let me get this straight. You are saying that as far as government policy goes, "sending out the right message" is more important than the actual amount of harm to human beings that results from pursuing a given policy?

 

[Yfelsung]

So because it is a crime, it is not okay?

Used to be a crime for blacks to marry whites.

"it's illegal so it must not right" is a massive appeal to authority.

Also, I perused your studies, I don't see a single one that was published in a peer reviewed medical journal of an accredited University.

I also see no control to ensure that it wasn't the psychosis that lead to drug use, not the drug use that lead to psychosis.

ALSO, it appears all the studies say that this could result from youth consumption, not adult consumption.

Prohibition has been shown to increase the amount of youth using the prohibited substance.

By the greatest majority of indicators, the biggest drops in alcohol consumption and alcohol problems actually came before national prohibition went into effect. Those drops continued for about the first two years of Prohibition and then alcohol consumption began to rise. By 1926, most of the problems were worse than they had been before Prohibition went into effect and there were a number of new problems -- such as a drinking epidemic among children -- that had not been there before.

The statement of Andrew Furuseth before Congress in 1926 describes what happened in the opening years of Prohibition:

When the prohibition amendment was passed and the Volstead Act was enacted, about three months after that I came through Portland, Oreg. Now there is a certain district in Portland Oreg. where there is the so-called employment district--- it is usually amongst the working people, called the "slave market"--- and I was the most astonished man you ever saw. Before that I had seen drunkenness there, dilapidated men, helpless, and in any condition that you do not want to see human beings. This time, three months after this act was passed there was an entire change. The men walked around from one place to another looking for employment, seamen and others. And they were sober. And they looked at the conditions, and they said, "No, we will wait a little." There was more independence amongst them than I had ever seen before. That very class which is the worst and lowest class that we know of amongst the seamen and workingmen. And I became an ardent advocate of the Volstead Act.

Two years afterwards I came through the same identical place, staying in Portland for about three days, and went to the very same place for the purpose of looking at the situation, and the condition was worse than it had been prior to the passage of the law. As long as the prohibition legislation was enforced, could be enforced, as long as the bootlegging element had not been organized, and not get the stuff, everything looked well. But the moment that they could get it they got it. And they will find it when nobody else can. They will find it somewhere. If it is to be bought in the vicinity any where they will find it. And the condition is worse than it ever was, because the stuff that they drink is worse than ever.

Drinking at an earlier age was also noted, particularly during the first few years of Prohibition. The superintendents of eight state mental hospitals reported a larger percentage of young patients during Prohibition (1919-1926) than formerly. One of the hospitals noted: "During the past year (1926), an unusually large group of patients who are of high school age were admitted for alcoholic psychosis" (Brown, 1932:176).

In determining the age at which an alcoholic forms his drinking habit, it was noted: "The 1920-1923 group were younger than the other groups when the drink habit was formed" (Pollock, 1942: 113).

AVERAGE AGE AT FORMATION OF DRINK HABIT

Period Males Females
1914 21.4 27.9
1920-23 20.6 25.8
1936-37 23.9 31.7
"The History of Alcohol Prohibition" from Marihuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding, The Report of the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, Commissioned by President Richard M. Nixon, March, 1972

All evidence points to prohibition causing more use of a substance and using lower quality substances. People don't do meth because they want to, they do meth because it's cheaper than cocaine.

People will do drugs and drink no matter what. Current evidence points to less drug and alcohol use when it is legal.

As I mentioned before and linked the story, Portugal decriminalized ALL DRUGS a DECADE ago and drug use DROPPED.

 

[Duvelthehobbit666]

Warning labels do not work and education doesn't work well enough.

If we were to vastly improve the education regarding drugs so that people knew the risks, etc. Would you change your stance?

A friend of mine smokes. He knows that it is bad for him but he does not care. I think eduction might help but if you really want to change the amount of people doing drugs, you would need to change human nature. History is full of drugs, the peace pipe of the Native Americans for example. There are tribes in South America which live with no technology but are complete nicotine addicts and shove huge amounts of tobacco in their mouths. Alcohol was a drug discovered very early on and there are people who claim that it actually led to the development of civilizations or at least helped it enormous. Drugs have been, and are still a huge part of religion and religious experiences. Hallucinogenics have long been a part of rituals and visions. To do drugs is pretty much to be human. I think it is just best to keep it legal because it is a lot worse if you keep drugs illegal.

 

[Aught3]

This is why I say legalise them and sell them at chemists/drugstores in plain packaging (no advertising or brands.) We could then spend the money saved from the policing bill on more effective education as to their effects and better treatment for those who have suffered at their hands. I'm sure this approach would have its problems, but I'm finding it hard to imagine them being much worse than what we currently face.

Saying 'you can't imagine' just makes this post a big argument from ignorance. I can imagine a world in which legalised drugs gain the same market penetration as alcohol. Not pretty, also not actually an argument.

This whole thread is so devoid of facts, evidence, and science that the discussion is just ideological at this point. We did have something on Portuguese drug use and a few studies on cannabis linked* but that's about it. Unless someone is willing to admit upfront that scientific evidence would not change their stance and then give us a proper argument as to why drugs in general (or certain drugs) should be illegal/legal this is all a huge waste of time.



*I find it ironic that the person who linked the Portuguese story, which was published in Time magazine, complained about the quality of studies published in the Lancet and the BMJ.

 

[MRaverz]

This is why I say legalise them and sell them at chemists/drugstores in plain packaging (no advertising or brands.) We could then spend the money saved from the policing bill on more effective education as to their effects and better treatment for those who have suffered at their hands. I'm sure this approach would have its problems, but I'm finding it hard to imagine them being much worse than what we currently face.

Saying 'you can't imagine' just makes this post a big argument from ignorance. I can imagine a world in which legalised drugs gain the same market penetration as alcohol. Not pretty, also not actually an argument.

This whole thread is so devoid of facts, evidence, and science that the discussion is just ideological at this point. We did have something on Portuguese drug use and a few studies on cannabis linked* but that's about it. Unless someone is willing to admit upfront that scientific evidence would not change their stance and then give us a proper argument as to why drugs in general (or certain drugs) should be illegal/legal this is all a huge waste of time.



*I find it ironic that the person who linked the Portuguese story, which was published in Time magazine, complained about the quality of studies published in the Lancet and the BMJ.

In regards to scientific evidence. If cannabis and other such drugs were shown to be harmless, I would have no reason to promote them being illegal. However, they have been shown to be harmful and I linked to a list of some of the studies.

I doubt I'll be able to reply to all comments aimed at me due to the vast number of them, so if I don't speak again - that's why. There comes a point where restating your argument to four people becomes too much.

 

[Andiferous]

Well, one could look at medical uses for drugs that are now illegal. Many legal prescriptions have worse effects.

Cannabis is very useful for pain patients, and particularly those undergoing chemotherapy, as it is a natural anti-nauseant. It's been legal to obtain a license to use marijuana for such reasons in Canada for a while. Here's a link for you.

MAPS is an international organisation doing research on the medical uses of scheduled drugs. You can look here for more info.

And I may be goofy - but I rather don't like marijuana myself.

 

[Your Funny Uncle]

This whole thread is so devoid of facts, evidence, and science that the discussion is just ideological at this point. We did have something on Portuguese drug use and a few studies on cannabis linked* but that's about it. Unless someone is willing to admit upfront that scientific evidence would not change their stance and then give us a proper argument as to why drugs in general (or certain drugs) should be illegal/legal this is all a huge waste of time.

*I find it ironic that the person who linked the Portuguese story, which was published in Time magazine, complained about the quality of studies published in the Lancet and the BMJ.

It's a fair point, and I do agree that it would be a whole lot easier to decide with good evidence. Scientific evidence on the effects of legalisation would most assuredly change my mind were it to contradict my ideas but the problem with getting evidence for the efficacy of legalising drugs is that it's pretty much impossible to do so without trying it. Does this mean that it shouldn't be tried? We can see the mess inflicted on innocent people's lives by the current system, and that it is clearly not working as intended. Why not give the alternative a try? If it truly is worse then at least you'll have a good argument to re-criminalise. That's my rationale. it's not backed-up by as much evidence as I'd like, but to me it seems sensible to try it.

 

[MRaverz]

Well, one could look at medical uses for drugs that are now illegal. Many legal prescriptions have worse effects.

Cannabis is very useful for pain patients, and particularly those undergoing chemotherapy, as it is a natural anti-nauseant. It's been legal to obtain a license to use marijuana for such reasons in Canada for a while. Here's a link for you.

MAPS is an international organisation doing research on the medical uses of scheduled drugs. You can look here for more info.

And I may be goofy - but I rather don't like marijuana myself.

Naturally, it's a case of good effects over potential of bad effects and the suitable medical bodies are responsible for this (right?). Cannabis for medicine is being looked into (some people already use cannabis for pain relief as you already said), those bad side effects could be removed if similar drugs are synthesised.

Yet these medicines aren't being used recreationally and that's the issue here.

 

[PeanutbutterChilli]

Well, one could look at medical uses for drugs that are now illegal. Many legal prescriptions have worse effects.

Cannabis is very useful for pain patients, and particularly those undergoing chemotherapy, as it is a natural anti-nauseant. It's been legal to obtain a license to use marijuana for such reasons in Canada for a while. Here's a link for you.

MAPS is an international organisation doing research on the medical uses of scheduled drugs. You can look here for more info.

And I may be goofy - but I rather don't like marijuana myself.

Naturally, it's a case of good effects over potential of bad effects and the suitable medical bodies are responsible for this (right?). Cannabis for medicine is being looked into (some people already use cannabis for pain relief as you already said), those bad side effects could be removed if similar drugs are synthesised.

Yet these medicines aren't being used recreationally and that's the issue here.

Medicines used recreationally (some of which like the cough medicine don't even require a prescription and lets not even get into the effects of morphine addiction)

Possessing a small amount of a drug for personal use does not harm another person. Selling the seeds for someone to grow it for themselves also does not harm that person. Selling the actual end result (even if it isn't cut with crap) could be considered doing harm but there's possibly a double standard here with the harm done by cigarettes and alcohol.

Your analogy of rape and murder being similar to personal drug use is pure garbage. Rape and murder are immoral because they harm another person and leave lasting psychological scars (in the case of murder,the lasting effect would be felt by the family).

The suicide analogy doesn't work here either since suicide has a legitimate psychological impact on the relatives of the deceased and while getting addicted to drugs also would do,smoking on occasion would not,much in the same way as being an alcoholic would harm your family but having the occasional beer would not.