420 Use and Health

[TheJanitor]

Prohibition of marijuana = more crime, since obtaining and using marijuana requires "criminal" activity.

So, by your logic, make everything legal, so there would be no crime? Wow.....

Prohibition of murder = more crime, since killing someone requires "criminal" activity.

[lxskllr]

So, by your logic, make everything legal, so there would be no crime? Wow.....

Prohibition of murder = more crime, since killing someone requires "criminal" activity.

You're kicking the shit out of that strawman. Leave some for the rest of us....

[deadohsky]

Prohibition of marijuana = more crime, since obtaining and using marijuana requires "criminal" activity. Packing prisons with marijuana offenders is a tremendous burden on both the correctional system and the tax payer. Violent crime cartels operate for the sole purpose of supplying it. Lots of crime follows on the coattails of drug dealers. You aren't interested in what would happen from a crime perspective if 50% of drug dealing was rendered obsolete? You don't see people getting shot over the buying and selling of alcohol...

Exactly, well said Roo.


I don't see legalization as condoning drug abuse. I see it as the government controlling one less aspect of life, kind of saying; you are an adult, you can make your own choice as to what you put into your body.

It shouldn't be as easily accessible as you put it, on the counter at Walgreens. It should be regulated similar to alcohol. There could be more addicts, but i'm not sure about that. As i've said before, I don't think that all that many people would just start doing drugs simply because they are legal. As far as the crime, if drugs aren't illegal, that would greatly reduce crime as it'd be a safer environment for those that are addicted, and there would hopefully be better programs to help those that are, hopefully reducing the number of actual addicts.

It's easier for kids these days to get weed or really any drug they want than it is for them to get alcohol. Your dealer isn't going to ask for ID.

[TheJanitor]

How does the strawman comment apply? His argument was making something illegal causes crime, since doing it would require breaking the law. It's just a friendly debate, why don't you add something to it instead of lame, overused expressions? You don't seem to understand the difference between a strawman and an equivalent argument you just happen to disagree with.

[Roo]

No... by my logic: make a harmless, nonviolent personal choice legal to prevent the myriad violent crimes resulting from its prohibition. One only needs to look at alcohol prohibition during the 1920's to see my point -- prohibiting the sale and consumption of a product that 1/3 of Americans either currently use or have used in the past leads to dangerous criminal activity surrounding the supply and demand of said product. Suggesting that murder and marijuana use can be interchanged in my "equation" is absurd and I hope you agree with that.

Also, can a brother disagree with your statement without the 'you're an idiot' treatment? A friendly discussion doesn't need any "Wows" suggesting that my opinion is stupid as shit. I didn't put any of that in my response, nor did I put words in your mouth by employing a faulty and mocking extension of your logic. Just trying to further the discussion here. Hang on a sec while I unbunch my panties... thanks.

Edit: forgive me if I misread your tone. I'm always down for a friendly debate

[lxskllr]

How does the strawman comment apply? His argument was making something illegal causes crime, since doing it would require breaking the law. It's just a friendly debate, why don't you add something to it instead of lame, overused expressions? You don't seem to understand the difference between a strawman and an equivalent argument you just happen to disagree with.

A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position

I'm well acquainted with English, and it's proper usage. The debate's pretty much over when bullshit is offered as arguement. Only a child or a lawyer would make that kind of jump in logic...

[TheJanitor]

@Roo- the "Wow" was nothing personal, certainly not implying you are stupid, though I see how it came off that way. I apologize. I do stand by the analogy made, though perhaps should have kept it to myself, as I do not want to insult your intelligence.

@lxskllr- Very nice. Calling my post bullshit, then comparing me to a child. Looking at your post count, I can see this place is your life and now you've become a straight up dickhead, just like sage. F*ck this place, I'm not gonna post on a site where the mods are allowed to treat the members like shit. Peace.

[lxskllr]

So now you're calling out my mod status, classy... I'm a member here like everyone else. I speak for lxskllr. Not ice, not SnusOn, Not anyone else. I don't censor anyone else's speech, and I'm sure as shit not going to censor my own. If you don't like it here, you're free to leave. You're also free to stay; I don't care much either way, but you can be damned sure I'm going to call out bullshit when I see it.

[Crow]

Legalizing drugs is stupid as hell. Weed included. I have kids, and legalization would send the message that drugs are OK.

Part of the tax revenue from our initiative would be directed towards drug education and prevention programs. The initiative was not forged with the intention of encouraging people to go out and get stoned. You're either missing the initiative's intention, or you're blindly ignoring it.

You say you're a parent? Then you should take the responsibility, and inform your children about your views if you're concerned about your children using cannabis or other drugs.

Should it all just be sitting on the counter at Walgreens? More availability=more addicts. More addicts equals more crime, poverty and ruined lives. Genius.....

The initiative allows for the possession and consumption of cannabis for adults 21 and over and will only be available for purchase from stores that are state-owned, or specialty stores that have been licenced by the state to sell cannabis. In both instances, a strict ID check program will be implemented with strict penalties to those who sell or give to minors.

So, no, you're not going to see the "Northern Lights" at your local 7-11.

When it comes to legalisation of cannabis, it's no longer a matter of IF, but a matter of WHEN. We're proving that every day.

You should learn to make peace with this because change is coming, and I (along with countless others) will keep fighting for our civil liberty, and a more civil society. We're just getting started.

[truthwolf1]

Yeah, I would much rather have addicts go to the local Walgreens with I.D then have drug cartels keep rising all over the USA.
Janitor, if you have kids then you probably remember the "Just Say NO!" campaign which has become one WAR that America has LOST!
It's been how many years? and how many dollars spent and we have pretty much gotten no-where. It is time to re-think how we can really help addicts by investing in treatment and taking away those massive profits from the growing gang problem.

[Crow]

Unlike Tennessee Congressman Steve Cohen (who favors America having a fair and constitutionally consistent cannabis policy…), the current Speaker of the House of Representatives, John Boehner, simply does not get how hypocritical he is by favoring another 74 years of the failed federal Cannabis Prohibition, while at the same time, being a frequent consumer (and longtime political ally) of far more dangerous and deadly drugs like alcohol and tobacco.


A NORML supporter from Ohio named Todd recently used NORML’s webpage to contact his elected representative in Congress, who just so happens to be the Speaker of the House John Boehner, to encourage him to become a co-sponsor of the Ron Paul/Barney Frank bill to allow states to legalize cannabis for responsible adult use.

What Todd did was exactly what tens of thousands of other like-minded NORML supporters have done since late June, when H.R. 2306 was introduced: they contacted their member of Congress and asked them to support the passage of H.R. 2306.

What cannabis reformers and consumers really need to do now is to send hundreds of thousands of letters and emails to their members of Congress, and to, like Todd, not take ‘no’ for an answer, especially from hypocrites like Speaker Boehner, who maybe one of the capital’s most notorious tobacco addicts and consumer of hard liquor.

Please join Todd and tens of thousands of other citizens who do
not support Cannabis Prohibition anymore by contacting your member of Congress
and insist that they co-sponsor H.R. 2306.

[Crow]

[Crow]

"Legalizing marijuana may be for the best"

by Dr. Kenneth Hendrickson (from The Houstonian)

I don't use cannabis. I did during college, but it has been over 20 years since my last toke and I have no plans to return. I have familial and contractual obligations that make breaking the law with cannabis out of the question for me.

That being said, I understand that cannabis is a permanent part of our society. I have also come to believe that our current cannabis laws and policies do not achieve reasonable public health goals, are cost inefficient, are corrosive to the Constitution, and have contributed to the destabilization of governments around the world and communities throughout the United States.

In making such assertions, I am far from alone. Fully 75% of the American people consider the Drug War failed, according to a 2008 Zogby poll. Over 500 world economists from the best universities and agencies, including three who are Nobel Laureates, have endorsed the work of Harvard economist Jeffrey A. Miron. Miron has shown, among other things, that prohibition increases the price of cannabis and other drugs and actually spurs increased production and sales.

The Global Commission on Drug Policy, touting such luminaries as Kofi Annan, Reagan administration officials like George Schulz and Paul Volcker, and leaders from business, the arts, and the law, recently published its review of the Drug War. Like many before them, they concluded that prohibition policies principally championed by the United States are failing and are exacerbating the international drug problem.

In 2009, a combined panel of Latin American presidents and politicians, including Fernando Ernando Henrique Cardoso (former President of Brazil), Cesar Gaviria (former President of Colombia) and Ernesto Zedillo (former President of Mexico) requested the US to review and revise its Drug War policies. None of these observers are wild people or counter-cultural agitators. They represent the highest levels of leadership and achievement across many countries.

And they all say the same thing: the Drug War does not work.

Looking at the costs at home, we see that not only has the United States invested billions of dollars in this failed effort, it has also embraced legal and social practices that threaten our basic civil liberties. Currently, the United States imprisons the most people in the world. With about 5% of the world population, our nation maintains about 25% of the world prison population. We imprison more people per 100,000 of the general population than Russia and China combined.

American police officers and federal agents conduct thousands of home invasions every year, too often with tragic unintended consequences. Investigations, arrests, and sentencing are demonstrably unequal among our different racial groups. For example, while adult African Americans account for about 9% of the population and about 13% of cannabis users, they account for nearly 25% of all cannabis/marijuana arrests. Such heavy handed imprisonment policies and unequal enforcement breed hostility and contempt for the law.

Moreover, US policies are the most aggressive in the industrialized world for ensuring drug offenders do not successfully reform. American rates for funding treatment and rehab are among the lowest.

American laws dictate that drug offenders lose access to educational funding. The 1998 Drug Free Student Loans act withholds student loans (not grants, just loans) from convicted drug offenders, even though research shows education is a major tool in rehabilitation of offenders.

I do not support drug abuse. In reforming drug laws including the legalization of marijuana, I believe we can achieve better public health and public security results than we do now. My goals are the same as most people: reduction in health hazards associated with drug use including marijuana; special focus on keeping young people and children from beginning drug habits; reduction in drug related crimes; stabilization of neighbors like Mexico by reducing and eventually eliminating the power of organized crime.

I also wish to strengthen our Constitutional liberties and work for a more efficient government here at home. These goals can be better achieved not with heavy handed prohibitionist policies, but with a blended mix of law enforcement, public education, treatment and rehabilitation of drug addicts, and in some instances like marijuana legalization.

Several countries now have regimes of legal decriminalization of cannabis possession. Places like the Netherlands have practiced legal toleration of marijuana use for many years. Portugal, having created a comprehensive drug policy reform, has enjoyed tremendous success in reducing drug related pathologies since 2001. However, all countries decriminalizing marijuana still wrestle with problems related to production and supply. Legalization will close that loop in the particular case of marijuana.

No country has developed a magic formula and even the most successful, like Portugal, are works in progress. I do not propose any utopian scheme. Reform and repair of Drug War damage will take time, wisdom, and skill. However, the necessary components to begin are nowhere more abundant than the United States. Our country still boasts the best medical science, the best universities, the highest number of top level trained professionals and trained jurists in the world. We have social services professionals, health policy analysts, and an excellent media and information infrastructure.

Article continued... Link

[Crow]

I dedicate this post to EricHill78:

New Study: Crohn’s Disease Mitigated By Cannabis

The federal government steadfastly refuses to acknowledge the therapeutic utility of the cannabis plant, stating as recently as this past July that it possesses:

“a high potential for abuse; … no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States; … [and] lacks accepted safety for use under medical supervision. … [T]here are no adequate and well-controlled studies proving (marijuana’s) efficacy; the drug is not accepted by qualified experts. … At this time, the known risks of marijuana use have not been shown to be outweighed by specific benefits in well-controlled clinical trials that scientifically evaluate safety and efficacy.”

Yet, almost daily, scientific journals from around the globe expose the absurdity of the administration’s longstanding ‘flat Earth’ position regarding the medical use of cannabis.

Below is a just published abstract from yet another scientific study establishing the safety and efficacy of cannabis. Your government will state categorically that studies like these don’t exist. Your government is lying to you.

Treatment of Crohn’s disease with cannabis: an observational study

via PubMed

Isr Med Assoc J. 2011 Aug;13(8):455-8.

BACKGROUND: The marijuana plant cannabis is known to have therapeutic effects, including improvement of inflammatory processes. However, no report of patients using cannabis for Crohn’s disease (CD) was ever published.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the effects of cannabis use in patients suffering from CD.

METHODS: In this retrospective observational study we examined disease activity, use of medication, need for surgery, and hospitalization before and after cannabis use in 30 patients (26 males) with CD. Disease activity was assessed by the Harvey Bradshaw index for Crohn’s disease.

RESULTS: Of the 30 patients 21 improved significantly after treatment with cannabis. The average Harvey Bradshaw index improved from 14 +/- 6.7 to 7 +/- 4.7 (P < 0.001). The need for other medication was significantly reduced. Fifteen of the patients had 19 surgeries during an average period of 9 years before cannabis use, but only 2 required surgery during an average period of 3 years of cannabis use.

CONCLUSIONS: This is the first report of cannabis use in Crohn’s disease in humans. The results indicate that cannabis may have a positive effect on disease activity, as reflected by reduction in disease activity index and in the need for other drugs and surgery. Prospective placebo-controlled studies are warranted to fully evaluate the efficacy and side effects of cannabis in CD.

NORML will have a detailed summary of this study in next week’s NORML News.
(Sign up to receive NORML News updates here.)

[Crow]

United Kingdom

LIBERAL DEMOCRATS: PANEL SHOULD CONSIDER LEGALISING CANNABIS

An independent panel should consider legalising cannabis as part of a wide-ranging review of drug laws, the Liberal Democrats said.

The experts should also consider whether possession of any currently illegal drug should remain a criminal offence.

The motion was passed by the Liberal Democrat conference in Birmingham as a senior lawyer told activists that current drug policy is not working.

Alistair Webster QC, a crown court recorder and chairman of the Lib Dem lawyers association, told the conference: "I have practised in the courts, both as an advocate and judge, for over 30 years and it's plain to anybody who has spent time in that way that the drug policy which we have followed since 1967 is not working."

He acknowledged that "decriminalisation, per se, carries with it its own problems" but said the motion called for an "intelligent reassessment - start again, look again and see where we can get it better".

Ewan Hoyle, from South Glasgow, proposed the policy and told the conference that politicians had not tackled the issue because of "cowardice" in the face of a potentially hostile backlash in the press.

He said: "The war on drugs is not working, but it's essential that we keep fighting. Drugs are harmful, they can take young people to places that are every parent's worst nightmare: insanity, disease, destitution, prostitution, death.

"We have to keep fighting in the best way we can to stop young people from all walks slipping into lives of misery and early graves.

"But we are still fighting a massive 21st century drug problem with 20th century methods."

The motion calls for a panel to review the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act and consider reforms of the law so that "possession of any controlled drug for personal use would not be a criminal offence".

The experts would consider whether possession would be "prohibited" but "should cause police officers to issue citations" for users to appear before panels who would determine whether health, education or social interventions were necessary.

As an alternative, the panel would also consider "potential frameworks for a strictly controlled and regulated cannabis market".

Mr Hoyle called for cannabis to be sold in chemist shops where it could be regulated.

He said: "The motion calls for models of cannabis regulation to be investigated. I personally favour sale from pharmacies.

"If we want to send a message that cannabis is harmful - and we should - - how better to do so than through a health professional at the point of intended purchase?

"No pharmacist is going to suggest the customer progresses to the use of heroin or crack. And no pharmacist would sell to a child."

Mr Hoyle said in Portugal and Switzerland they had followed expert advice to treat drug use as a medical rather than a moral or criminal issue.

But in the UK there was no political will to change the system, which resulted in a UKP6 billion illegal drug market.

He said: "It isn't taxed and the vast majority of the profits go into the hands of organised criminal gangs. This includes millions of pounds to the Taliban in Afghanistan, with which they can purchase the bombs and bullets that murder our brave soldiers.

"We have to stop enriching our criminals."

The drug trade had created "criminal idols" - drug dealers who are looked up to as role models and employers in deprived areas.

"We could undermine these criminal idols if we removed their control of the drug trade and placed it in to the careful hands of the state", he said.

Activist Adam Corlett accused politicians of double standards over drugs policy.

He said: "Many MPs and even ministers seem to be more averse to drugs policy than to drugs themselves."

Duncan Scott, from the Oxford East Lib Dems said: "There's a hypocrisy in our drug laws. Culturally, our attitude towards drug use just doesn't merit our attitude towards other forms of illegal behaviour."

George Miles told the conference: "Taxation of cannabis could net UKP2 billion a year, says one estimate, which would build hospitals instead of funding terrorists."

He added: "John Lennon and Eric Clapton didn't say legalise heroin or cocaine, but Bob Marley says legalise cannabis."

But Councillor Julian Cooper, from Witney, spoke against the potential legalisation of cannabis.

He said: "I think there's a misconception in this that legalisation would solve a lot of those problems."