The Marijuana Debate

[AWP]

You can have rights or you can have rights, but you can't have more than one.

 

[goon175]

Yup, in CO if you have a "red card", the medical marijuana license, you cannot possess firearms.

 

[Chopstick]

Yup, in CO if you have a "red card", the medical marijuana license, you cannot possess firearms.

Forgive my ignorance, but how is the "red card" individual different from the ...legal recreational marijuana user now that marijuana is legal?

 

[goon175]

Forgive my ignorance, but how is the "red card" individual different from the ...legal recreational marijuana user now that marijuana is legal?

Two different laws, two different uses. One is for recreational use and has a set of laws and regulations, one is for medical use and has a different set of laws and regulations. Recreational MJ is typically much different from medical grade.

 

[JBS]

Marijuana use being legalized is insanity.

Many of the arguments in favor of it could also be made about heroin and cocaine. Hell I could make the case that coke would increase productivity and alertness and cite 2500 years of use or even further back in ancient Egypt and go forward to high altitude workers in the fields picking the hell out of some crops while chewing leaves ttoday in South America.

Drugs that screw with brain chemistry are never going to be without a cost to the body somewhere. I'm gonna go ahead and stick to my belief that it dulls you over time. I'm not so intense about it that I'm going to get even mildly bent out of shape over it. But I agree with a reverend from an inner city church who was on the news yesterday pleading with Obama to think about the consequences of what he's saying and reminding him that his legacy is going to be that of encouraging pot use amongst the most impressionable sectors of society.

 

[amlove21]

Marijuana use being legalized is insanity.

Many of the arguments in favor of it could also be made about heroin and cocaine. Hell I could make the case that coke would increase productivity and alertness and cite 2500 years of use or even further back in ancient Egypt and go forward to high altitude workers in the fields picking the hell out of some crops while chewing leaves ttoday in South America.

Drugs that screw with brain chemistry are never going to be without a cost to the body somewhere. I'm gonna go ahead and stick to my belief that it dulls you over time. I'm not so intense about it that I'm going to get even mildly bent out of shape over it. But I agree with a reverend from an inner city church who was on the news yesterday pleading with Obama to think about the consequences of what he's saying and reminding him that his legacy is going to be that of encouraging pot use amongst the most impressionable sectors of society.

This is a really interesting issue to me. I would say I lean toward the libertarian sort of "Sell it, regulate it, tax the living holy crap out of it, get over it" view. We allow other intoxicants (alcohol) and things that are 100% proven to cause death for users (cigarettes), but now America seems to have this moral obligation to protect it's citizens? Uh, ok. We did the same thing with prohibition. Never, curiously, with big tobacco, but that's due to the lessons learned from prohibition and the amount of money tabled. I digress.

It falls in the same category with me as every other "vice", like gambling, alcohol, cigarettes, even as far as legalized drug use- if it's in the privacy of your own home or appropriately used with no negative impact to me or society, then go ahead. If it kills you or ruins your life? Well, maybe you shouldn't have done that, eh?

 

[Deleted member 2517]

Marijuana use being legalized is insanity.

Many of the arguments in favor of it could also be made about heroin and cocaine. Hell I could make the case that coke would increase productivity and alertness and cite 2500 years of use or even further back in ancient Egypt and go forward to high altitude workers in the fields picking the hell out of some crops while chewing leaves ttoday in South America.

Drugs that screw with brain chemistry are never going to be without a cost to the body somewhere. I'm gonna go ahead and stick to my belief that it dulls you over time. I'm not so intense about it that I'm going to get even mildly bent out of shape over it. But I agree with a reverend from an inner city church who was on the news yesterday pleading with Obama to think about the consequences of what he's saying and reminding him that his legacy is going to be that of encouraging pot use amongst the most impressionable sectors of society.

And most of your arguments could be related to alcohol, tobacco and even caffeine.
You keep making these statements where you call out pot and hard drugs, yet you seem to leave alcohol out every time. You yourself just said a few posts back that alcohol has been produced and consumed for thousands of years, and cited that as a reason for it being legal. And I've seen several posts on here (thanks to @TLDR20) citing peer reviewed studies that dispute your points (that pot legalization is "crazy" because of things like reduced motor skills and laziness) but you keep reiterating the same anecdotes about stoners and Slackers and hippies and even Commies. I don't see any valid arguments from the anti-legalization side, backed by science, that really lend any credence to the idea that the bad outweighs the good in this situation.

 

[goon175]

Marijuana use being legalized is insanity.

Many of the arguments in favor of it could also be made about heroin and cocaine. No they could not. Heroine and Coke have very quantifiable and easily identifiable negative impacts on the body. It is nearly impossible to die from cannabis over dose, where as coke and heroin users routinely overdose and die. Hell I could make the case that coke would increase productivity and alertness and cite 2500 years of use or even further back in ancient Egypt and go forward to high altitude workers in the fields picking the hell out of some crops while chewing leaves ttoday in South America.

Drugs that screw with brain chemistry are never going to be without a cost to the body somewhere. There are two types of canabis, Sativa and Indica. Sativa effects cerebral function (the brain), and Indica has no cerebral effect - it mainly works on the body. So, given you are concerned with the effect of Canabis on the brain, would you then support legalization of Indica since it has no effect on the brain? I'm gonna go ahead and stick to my belief that it dulls you over time. I'm not so intense about it that I'm going to get even mildly bent out of shape over it. But I agree with a reverend from an inner city church who was on the news yesterday pleading with Obama to think about the consequences of what he's saying and reminding him that his legacy is going to be that of encouraging pot use amongst the most impressionable sectors of society.

 

[pardus]

And most of your arguments could be related to alcohol, tobacco and even caffeine.
You keep making these statements where you call out pot and hard drugs, yet you seem to leave alcohol out every time. You yourself just said a few posts back that alcohol has been produced and consumed for thousands of years, and cited that as a reason for it being legal. And I've seen several posts on here (thanks to @TLDR20) citing peer reviewed studies that dispute your points (that pot legalization is "crazy" because of things like reduced motor skills and laziness) but you keep reiterating the same anecdotes about stoners and Slackers and hippies and even Commies. I don't see any valid arguments from the anti-legalization side, backed by science, that really lend any credence to the idea that the bad outweighs the good in this situation.

I believe Cannabis has been smoked for at least the last 10,000yrs (in Africa by the Bushmen). So the alcohol argument would be a double edged sword...

 

[Chopstick]

Two different laws, two different uses. One is for recreational use and has a set of laws and regulations, one is for medical use and has a different set of laws and regulations. Recreational MJ is typically much different from medical grade.

Again, forgive my lack of knowledge on this. How exactly is medical marijuana different from recreational marijuana? The only thing I can seem to find is that the difference between medical vs recreational is how it is taxed? Is there some sort of guidline such as with spirits "alcohol by volume" and proof?
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/po...ana-and-recreational-marijuana-co-exist/7324/

The board basically wants medical marijuana patients to get their pot the way recreational users get theirs. The biggest distinction between the two types of consumers (though it will probably not be the only one) is that medical marijuana patients would be allowed to use tax exemptions to make up for the fact that recreational pot will be taxed, and thus far more expensive than medical pot, which isn't.

http://www.denverdispensaries.net/t...dical-and-recreational-marijuana-in-colorado/

What is the difference between medical and recreational marijuana though? The main difference is the amount of tax that is charged with each sale. For recreational sales of marijuana around the Denver area, an additional 20-25% sales tax is added to the foot of the bill. The exact tax rate will vary between counties so for exact tax rates, give a call to your local rec dispensary. Medical patients will receive a lower tax rate around 10% due to their legitimate need for medicine. Medical patients will also have a larger variety of products to choose from. This includes edibles, tinctures and other products infused with marijuana such as various concentrates.

Also, how much does it cost to buy recreational marijuana in these legal shops vs. what you could buy on the street?

 

[JBS]

And all this time I thought weed was cast upon us by the red menace as an attempt to destroy America!

It always amazes me when people think that because today some plot seems outlandish, stupid, and unthinkable that people in the 50's and 60's would never have considered executing such things. If we want to see a government secretly administering drugs to unsuspecting populations, we don't even need to look at Russia.

• In 1953, Project MK Ultra was sanctioned by the US Government. Project MK Ultra was the code name for a U.S. government human research operation experimenting in the behavioral engineering of humans through the CIA's Scientific Intelligence Division. The CIA project was coordinated with the Special Operations Division of the Army's Chemical Corps.[1] MKUltra used numerous methodologies to manipulate people's mental states and alter brain functions, including the surreptitious administration of drugs (especially LSD) and other chemicals, hypnosis, sensory deprivation, isolation, verbal and sexual abuse, as well as various forms of torture.[9] The scope of Project MKUltra was broad, with research undertaken at 80 institutions, including 44 colleges and universities, as well as hospitals, prisons and pharmaceutical companies.[10]

So, yeah, there's precedent for covert administration of drugs by a sitting modern government into the general population and for an extended period of time. Kind of brings that "unthinkable absurdity" down a notch or two. And just for clarity, I never even remotely suggested marijuana was created, grown, or in any other way had it's origin in the USSR. In my earlier posts I obviously nod my head at the fact that small quantities of marijuana have been grown, cultivated, and consumed by humans for thousands of years, but in relatively tiny quantities. What I did allude to was the possibility that USSR interests could have- and likely did- promote its use by Americans during the Cold War. The intent would have been to diminish aggression among the population and erode support for conflict, and as a consequence indirectly reduce the ability of the (elected) US Government to project military power. Marijuana at the time was seen to reduce aggression and have long lasting calming psychological effects. The USSR always completely understood that influencing the opinions and impulses of populations of democratic nations could ultimately steer policy and even put hard limits on the reach of officials. It's therefore quite easy to imagine a plan to promote widespread cannabis use in the American population, in a long-term attempt to undermine grass roots support for war. Easy to implement- check, low risk-check, potentially enormous yield/return- check, deniability-check. As a side note, today many Americans still have a mental image of marijuana users from the 60's all about two things: smoking more dope, and abstaining from war.

And most of your arguments could be related to alcohol, tobacco and even caffeine.

You keep making these statements where you call out pot and hard drugs, yet you seem to leave alcohol out every time. You yourself just said a few posts back that alcohol has been produced and consumed for thousands of years, and cited that as a reason for it being legal.

That's only partially accurate. I'm referring to its safe consumption by billions of people for 10's of thousands of years. The breadth and scope of alcohol consumption by probably the vast majority of everyone who ever lived is itself a testament to how safe (in the statistical sense) it is. For some populations - sub populations living in certain geographic areas, for example (Egyptians, Romans) alcoholic beverages were consumed as an almost exclusive source of water intake- especially in areas where no potable water could be had. It was carried to school by Egyptian children in a drink that closely resembles beer for more than 1,000 years. It was taken by Roman military on expeditions to arid climates, and many other historical examples. There's no doubt that alcohol has always been abused, since we read accounts of festivals in the Temple of Bacchus where people would drink, and vomit, and then drink again for literally days on end- festivals that went on for a week at a time, consisting almost exclusively of drinking as much as the participants could stand. Unlike the modern equivalent (more modern partying), however, such behavior was more likely to be indulged by only the richest citizens, since drinking and feasting to such excess was not normally within the grasp of most citizens of the day. Let's not forget our standards of living for the common man has radically changed in the last few centuries.

The point is the consumption of marijuana compared to the mass consumption of alcohol throughout human history- the scale of the two are beyond comparison. If we assign a value to total use of alcohol, that value would be X*1,000,000,000,000,000 where the consumption of marijuana throughout human history would likely be X*0.0000001.

And I've seen several posts on here (thanks to @TLDR20) citing peer reviewed studies that dispute your points (that pot legalization is "crazy" because of things like reduced motor skills and laziness) but you keep reiterating the same anecdotes about stoners and Slackers and hippies and even Commies. I don't see any valid arguments from the anti-legalization side, backed by science, that really lend any credence to the idea that the bad outweighs the good in this situation.

I agree @TLDR20 's post was excellent, but it was and is certainly not without rebuttal. This thread has made me want to research the topic more. I've come up with numerous studies that show cannabis use in adolescents causes permanent brain damage, developmental disabilities, elevated risk of psychosis, and a host of other problems. I'll gather and post them later when I have time. Marijuana is not without risk. The funny thing is that a cursory Google search yields the first 20 pages of pro-marijuana literature written by advocates of pot use in an extremely biased way, making any genuine search on the topic tougher than I thought it should be.

 

[AWP]

I've moved the marijuana posts from the Greatest Threats thread so we can continue th debate without hijacking what's become a totally separate thread.

 

[JBS]

Here is a newer one http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2012/01/11282/marijuana-shown-be-less-damaging-lungs-tobacco

I have a few studies that demonstrate marijuana causes major health risks, and surprisingly most of what I find is centered on damage caused to adolescents, where adults seem to sustain far less impact if they consume marijuana after they're already adults.

But this study you link to, how marijuana is less harmful to your lungs sounds like we're basically making the argument that a .22 is less lethal than a 7.62. Part of the reason for that, isn't because of tobacco, but all the other additives in cigarette products that were not in them 30 to 40 years ago. I have a relative who is a tobacco farmer, and I've used his tobacco in my pipes (the only smoking vice I have anymore is the occasional pipe or a cigar). Smoking a tobacco leaf is not the same as smoking the chopped and sprayed product in a Marlboro. The amount of additives in that stuff is monstrous, making it more lethal, more addictive, and more toxic than just drying a tobacco leaf and shredding it yourself. Anyway, smoke of any kind in the lungs is toxic, but I wanted to point out that comparing the two isn't a great argument for using and a pretty weak one for legalization. You're basically saying they'll both kill you.

So then why is the President condoning it?

 

[AWP]

So then why is the President condoning it?

If my wife caught me trying to hook up with Denmark's PM, I'd need a little something to take the edge off my home life.

 

[enceladus]

U.S. treasury and law enforcement agencies will soon issue regulations opening banking services to state-sanctioned marijuana businesses even though cannabis remains classified an illegal narcotic under federal law, Attorney General Eric Holder said on Thursday.
Holder said the new rules would address problems faced by newly licensed recreational pot retailers in Colorado, and medical marijuana dispensaries in other states, in operating on a cash-only basis, without access to banking services or credit.

One step closer to federal decriminalization. Like with gay marriage, we should just accept the inevitable and rip the band-aid off.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/23/marijuana-bank_n_4656145.html

 

[DA SWO]

Well the precedent is there for them to tax it. Like I said those were very conservative estimates, 13 Billion could very easily be double that.... And since when was adding revenue to reduce a deficit a bad thing? Because right now, like it or not people are spending money on weed.

What are the offset costs?
Will there be an increase in "buzzed" drivers, who cause more accidents increasing health care and workmans comp costs or lost productivity?
I think legalizing is coming, and we need to look at minimizing the negative impacts.

 

[TLDR20]

@JBS neither me nor anyone else is saying it should be legalized in adolescents, as I am sure you understand..further research shows the same data regarding increased problems from alcohol consumption, this is to be expected as the adolescent brain is not fully formed, so therefore any substance has an effect.Further stating a substance causes problems in the adolescent brain is not a good argument period for the same reason I stated before. You cannot guarantee that someone would not develop a mental disorder had MJ not been used. Therefore MJ is not causative for mental disorders, it is only correlated, which makes this topic very murky.

Earlier you sarcastically pointed out that we could also legalize heroine and cocaine while we are legalizing MJ but allow me to point out some easily verifiable reasons why that is not being pushed, and will never be pushed. Reason number 1, is that both of these substances begin to cause addiction in single uses. While I have no doubt that someone can become addicted to MJ(through heavy long long term use), the type of addiction(similar to tobacco) is significantly different than a chemical dependency that forms from drugs like cocaine, and heroine. Not to make light of the debate

The NIH also states that 23 percent of people who use heroine one time develop a chemical dependency on the drug. That is almost unbelievable, that if given to 4 people, one of those people would likely develop not an addiction, but a chemical dependency. That is insanity.

Reason number two as to the why coke and H aren't being pushed to legalize, is that both of those drugs lead to desperate people, which creates crime. Nobody is going to suck dick for weed, or pull copper wiring out of a live elctric trans station. But people on H and coke do both of those things, and I have seen the results first hand.

Lastly to me personally, I think it is insanity that if someone wants to smoke weed and listen to their favorite band at a concert, they have to risk going to jail. Meanwhile there are people blacked out drunk walking around the same concert, and they are just fine. Who is more likely to do damage to themselves or others? The guy that took a bong rip? Or the guy that did 10 tequila shots? I think the answer is pretty straight forward.

 

[pardus]

That's only partially accurate. I'm referring to its safe consumption by billions of people for 10's of thousands of years. The breadth and scope of alcohol consumption by probably the vast majority of everyone who ever lived is itself a testament to how safe (in the statistical sense) it is. For some populations - sub populations living in certain geographic areas, for example (Egyptians, Romans) alcoholic beverages were consumed as an almost exclusive source of water intake- especially in areas where no potable water could be had. It was carried to school by Egyptian children in a drink that closely resembles beer for more than 1,000 years. It was taken by Roman military on expeditions to arid climates, and many other historical examples. There's no doubt that alcohol has always been abused, since we read accounts of festivals in the Temple of Bacchus where people would drink, and vomit, and then drink again for literally days on end- festivals that went on for a week at a time, consisting almost exclusively of drinking as much as the participants could stand. Unlike the modern equivalent (more modern partying), however, such behavior was more likely to be indulged by only the richest citizens, since drinking and feasting to such excess was not normally within the grasp of most citizens of the day. Let's not forget our standards of living for the common man has radically changed in the last few centuries.

The point is the consumption of marijuana compared to the mass consumption of alcohol throughout human history- the scale of the two are beyond comparison. If we assign a value to total use of alcohol, that value would be X*1,000,000,000,000,000 where the consumption of marijuana throughout human history would likely be X*0.0000001.

I agree @TLDR20 's post was excellent, but it was and is certainly not without rebuttal. This thread has made me want to research the topic more. I've come up with numerous studies that show cannabis use in adolescents causes permanent brain damage, developmental disabilities, elevated risk of psychosis, and a host of other problems. I'll gather and post them later when I have time. Marijuana is not without risk. The funny thing is that a cursory Google search yields the first 20 pages of pro-marijuana literature written by advocates of pot use in an extremely biased way, making any genuine search on the topic tougher than I thought it should be.

You're pulling numbers out of your ass and you're cherry picking facts to back your argument. Ancient fermented drinks had a much lower alcohol percentage generally (though there were certainly strong drinks)(actually marijuana was a lot less potent than it is today, though that may only relate to commercially grown plants), they were a safe way to store bread (beer) and grapes (wine) for much longer periods than they could be kept in their natural form. It was also generally safer than water in certain parts of the world.

Has alcohol been more prevalent than marijuana? Yes I think so, though that is mainly a western view point. However marijuana use is and has been widespread and has been used for thousands of years in Europe, China, Africa and other places I'm sure. Queen Victoria was prescribed marijuana for menstrual cramps.

Marijuana is not "safe", it has harmful effects, but nothing significantly different to alcohol or tobacco.

^ this is fact.
v this is my opinion...

Advocating a prohibition on marijuana makes about as much sense as a prohibition on alcohol. Mexican drug cartels are grateful...

 

[TLDR20]

What are the offset costs?
Will there be an increase in "buzzed" drivers, who cause more accidents increasing health care and workmans comp costs or lost productivity?
I think legalizing is coming, and we need to look at minimizing the negative impacts.

I don't know the answer to that. I agree that minimizing negative impacts is very important. But out of curiosity, did prohibition keep people from drinking and driving? I doubt it.

 

[DA SWO]

I don't know the answer to that. I agree that minimizing negative impacts is very important. But out of curiosity, did prohibition keep people from drinking and driving? I doubt it.

You do understand that drunk driving wasn't viewed as a serious offense for many years don't you?
I am not lamenting buzzed drivers, but think we need to aknowledge an increase in buzzed people causing injury to themselves and others, are their "field tests" to determine the presence of THC?