Should Marijuana Be Legal?

[roy baty]

If you're drinking a pint of rum, I'd be surprised if you could find he ignition switch of a car.

You'd be surprised how many do everyday and how many don't get caught doing it. They'd likely not make it through that roadblock.. The stoner likely would. Hence the difference in enforcement abilities between the 2 drugs.

[Black Dog]

Right now, it's officer judgement w/visual indicators and potentially an ordered blood test Some countries use saliva testing but no roadside device like a breathalyzer. If it heads to court, if the suspect has a good lawyer the charge is easier to beat than a DUI charge. The thing about weed, it is far easier to get through a random roadblock with a stick of gum than if you had a pint of rum. Much harder to enforce for sure..

My point was, due to the difficulty to enforce, we don't know how big a problem driving while high is. So, unless you know for sure it actually is a problem, the inability to detect it shouldn't be a roadblock to legalization. I'm simply not convinced it's a big deal. I drove after smoking a joint once way back in the day and it was such a buzzkill after getting out of the car i immediately vowed to never do it again.

[BC_chick]

I like how Harper is also pandering for votes from the centre and left in his own way. It's not because it's a crime to do drugs or it's wrong that he hasn't smoked pot....it's because he has asthma. I wonder what the social conservatives in his base think of that.

Good one, I hadn't considered that.

[roy baty]

My point was, due to the difficulty to enforce, we don't know how big a problem driving while high is. So, unless you know for sure it actually is a problem, the inability to detect it shouldn't be a roadblock to legalization. I'm simply not convinced it's a big deal. I drove after smoking a joint once way back in the day and it was such a buzzkill after getting out of the car i immediately vowed to never do it again.

One could argue a chronic alcoholic who drinks a 40 ouncer of rum daily but just has 6 beers instead is fine to drive. Technically, he probably is fine from an impairment point of view due to the tolerance level but he'll still get a DUI. I smoke occasionally and I can tell you without a doubt that it definitely causes impairment and anyone who drives within a couple of hours is a threat on the road. Does it impair you as much as booze has the potential to? No. Should the inability to detect it as easy as alcohol roadblock legalization? It is definitely is a concern. Funny thing is, you're probably less likely to drive too impaired by weed for the reason you just described and because when you are in the worst state of impairment you're lucky to have enough energy to leave the couch let alone walk to a car.

Edited August 22, 2013 by roy baty

[On Guard for Thee]

Must remember trudeau said he was in favour, he did not say the liberal party is.

The Liberal party has already said legalization is on their agenda. Did it at their last convention.

[On Guard for Thee]

It seems to me this conversation is going down a funnell based on the idea of impaired driving, which is not at all the point. I totally agree impaired driving, from whatever source of impairment is wrong. When I get behind the wheel I make damn sure I'm the best I can be. The point is I can sit in the pub and drink beer untill the cows come home, and then walk home, but if I happen to light up a joint on the way I can be thrown in jail. It's crap, it's not fair, and it wrecks a lot of good peoples lives because a bunch of redneck conservatives can't see the forest for the trees. Pot has been here for a long time and it ain't going anywhere.Get used to it.

[DogOnPorch]

Marijuana is making a lot of dubious folks very rich by having it under prohibition.

[roy baty]

The Liberal party has already said legalization is on their agenda. Did it at their last convention.

This is correct. On The National last night, during the interview with him he said he AND the Liberal Party,

Edited August 23, 2013 by roy baty

[Keepitsimple]

Well - at least we have have the first plank in a Trudeau-led Liberal platform - Legalization of Marajuana. Good start for this future world Statesman.

Edited August 26, 2013 by Keepitsimple

[Icebound]

It is not that long ago that some provinces required you to apply for a permit to purchase liquor, AND THEN, whenever you actually DID purchase, you had to show the permit, produce ID, and fill out a requisition that showed what you bought and how much. All in the name of "control", so that us unwashed masses would not become a mere alcoholic slime.

Most of that was eliminated over the years... not because alcohol was any less toxic... but because the bureaucratic expense was not worth the supposed benefits of this "control". And strangely, productivity did not suffer....(after all, that's what this argument is REALLY about, isn't it?).... and the masses seem to have survived... even thrived... with their new alcoholic freedom.

Marijuana was used here long before it was outlawed, and it is not going away. Trudeau's position may well be a recognition that, just as for alcohol, the bureaucratic expense is not worth the social benefits..... and that, like tobacco, unbiased research and informed education will go a lot farther toward eliminating use, than will prohibition....IF, in fact, research shows it to be seriously harmful.

Just taking money away from enforcement and prosecution, and pouring it into research and education... with no other changes whatsoever.... will probably do quite a bit to curtail recreational usage in that case.

... and if you want to add a little taxation money to boot, well, usage could virtually disappear

...

...

[eyeball]

Marijuana is making a lot of dubious folks very rich by having it under prohibition.

Not surprisingly it's also made a lot of dubious folks that maintain its prohibition very powerful.

[WontonTiger]

Not surprisingly it's also made a lot of dubious folks that maintain its prohibition very powerful.

Let's not forget about all of the poor narcotics officers that wouldn't have anything to do should prohibition be repealed.

Maybe they could conduct some actual police work at that point...

[WontonTiger]

I am not sure I agree 100%. It may not be the same but is still nevertheless physically and mentally impairing and just like alcohol it impairs a driver relative to the driver's tolerance for it. For this very reason, they need to perfect a roadside test before they legalize it. Proposing that we just "trust" police officer judgement, as in the past w/alcohol is just not enough to hold up in court anymore.

As it stands, we have no solution currently. Since that is the case, why should we let our lack of a testing solution, affect the long term viability of marijuana prohibition. People are smoking it now, and they will continue to smoke. Until we have a solution to the testing issue, it's a moot point.

Legalization will reduce our prison population, saving us money, while also improving revenue yields. Why are we even discussing the options, there is clearly ONLY 1 OPTION!

[hitops]

It should probably be legalized, just get it over with. Police have better things to do.

For awhile I thought that Trudeau might be a legitimate threat to CPC governance. Given these events and others over the last few months, I doubt it. He continuously conducts himself like a clown and makes poor decisions. He presents like a juvenile. It's embarrassing listening to the older more established and respectful members of his party trying to pretend he is a great leader, trying to figure out ways to back him. It's like being beholden to the reckless nephew because he inherited the family fortune.

This should be a situation where the Liberals just sit back and watch the CPC drown in assorted bad press items which dispense like a candy machine these days. Instead, they have elected a leader who seems to determined to out-clown them for the loss.

But hey, this in the American Idol generation. By 2015 it's possible they will have polished him up and and nobody will remember the aimless wonder of 2013. I guess the leader doesn't really matter much anyway.

[Black Dog]

It should probably be legalized, just get it over with. Police have better things to do.

I'm not sure they do, actually. If pot were legal (to say nothing of other drugs) we'd see fewer drug crimes, but also fewer crimes related to the drug trade. The crime rate has been falling for years, but police continue to eat up larger and larger chunks of municipal, provincial, and federal dollars. they'd have a really hard time justifying that if the crime rate dropped dramatically with legalization.

[Boges]

I'm not sure they do, actually. If pot were legal (to say nothing of other drugs) we'd see fewer drug crimes, but also fewer crimes related to the drug trade. The crime rate has been falling for years, but police continue to eat up larger and larger chunks of municipal, provincial, and federal dollars. they'd have a really hard time justifying that if the crime rate dropped dramatically with legalization.

That's why police want to ability to just write tickets for pot possession.

So instead of stopping people for speeding on a Sunday morning they'd just look for people they think are high to generate revenue.

Public servants never want to become obsolete. Fires are down but does that mean we need less of them, they just spend their time beating Paramedics to the scene.

Edited August 29, 2013 by Boges

[sharkman]

Funny how people are willing to multi post on the updates section, but won't say anything here. Maybe it's all been said already. Anyway, here's the new study I've been referencing.

"Data from epidemiological studies have repeatedly shown an association between cannabis use and subsequent addiction to heavy drugs and psychosis (i.e. schizophrenia),” explained Dr. Jutras-Aswad.

“Interestingly, the risk to develop such disorders after cannabis exposure is not the same for all individuals and is correlated with genetic factors, the intensity of cannabis use and the age at which it occurs. When the first exposure occurs in younger versus older adolescents, the impact of cannabis seems to be worse in regard to many outcomes such as mental health, education attainment, delinquency and ability to conform to adult role," Jutras-Aswad added.

Legalizing it doesn't do anything about the brain damage that occurs.

[guyser]

Funny how people are willing to multi post on the updates section, but won't say anything here. Maybe it's all been said already. Anyway, here's the new study I've been referencing.

Legalizing it doesn't do anything about the brain damage that occurs.

Not many (none?) are advocating teen mary jane use , pretty much the same as teenage booze use.

But then again, we know that booze is far worse and we certainly dont do much about it apart from raising the age limit.

[BubberMiley]

Legalizing it doesn't do anything about the brain damage that occurs.

It certainly does. Legalizing it would destroy its black-market trade, making it difficult to buy through the existing channels. Just like when prohibition of alcohol ended, the government was able to take over the trade, regulate it, tax it, and ensure it wasn't easy for minors to get their hands on it. Naturally, legalization wouldn't make it impossible for minors to get access, but it would make it a lot more difficult than it is now. Edited August 30, 2013 by BubberMiley

[Black Dog]

Funny how people are willing to multi post on the updates section, but won't say anything here. Maybe it's all been said already. Anyway, here's the new study I've been referencing.

"Data from epidemiological studies have repeatedly shown an association between cannabis use and subsequent addiction to heavy drugs and psychosis (i.e. schizophrenia),” explained Dr. Jutras-Aswad.

“Interestingly, the risk to develop such disorders after cannabis exposure is not the same for all individuals and is correlated with genetic factors, the intensity of cannabis use and the age at which it occurs. When the first exposure occurs in younger versus older adolescents, the impact of cannabis seems to be worse in regard to many outcomes such as mental health, education attainment, delinquency and ability to conform to adult role," Jutras-Aswad added.

Legalizing it doesn't do anything about the brain damage that occurs.

Note the bolded.

More from the article:

...only an approximate one in four teenage users of cannabis become addicted or dependent on the drug, which suggests to the researchers that specific genetic and behavioral factors have more of an impact on whether teenage pot use will continue.

Studies have also shown that cannabis dependence can be inherited through the genes that produce the cannabinoid receptors, as well as an enzyme involved in the processing of THC. There are about 400 other chemicals that are also in marijuana that can also affect health, but THC is the main psychoactive, or mind altering, ingredient.

There are also psychological factors that are likely involved in cannabis dependence.

"Individuals who will develop cannabis dependence generally report a temperament characterized by negative affect, aggressivity and impulsivity, from an early age. Some of these traits are often exacerbated with years of cannabis use, which suggests that users become trapped in a vicious cycle of self-medication, which in turn becomes a dependence," Dr. Jutras-Aswad said.

So let me get this straight: your argument is marijuana should remain illegal (even though teens can freely get it now) because an unknown number of teenagers (as few as one in four) may develop issues as a result depending on their genetics, how much they smoke and age?

That's, uh, a reach.

As I already pointed out, legalization would likely make it harder for kids to get weed (no one gets rich selling dime bags to teens). Worst case scenario under legalization is the current status quo, which also carres with it a host of negative impacts that would be negated by legalization.

Edited August 30, 2013 by Black Dog

[sharkman]

I haven't really fleshed out my views on pot, and I'm pretty sure you'd beg to differ on anything I have to say on it, as would any pro-pot people here. I am focusing on this study, however, to see how people respond. Your response seems to be it's only 25% of teen users who are at risk, so no big deal. Other than that, does this study raise any concerns for you at all? Would legalization help or hurt the teens at risk.

[sharkman]

Not many (none?) are advocating teen mary jane use , pretty much the same as teenage booze use.

But then again, we know that booze is far worse and we certainly dont do much about it apart from raising the age limit.

Interesting point, it seems to me that if a teen wants something bad enough they will find a way to get it. Legalization doesn't touch this issue.

[Black Dog]

I haven't really fleshed out my views on pot, and I'm pretty sure you'd beg to differ on anything I have to say on it, as would any pro-pot people here. I am focusing on this study, however, to see how people respond. Your response seems to be it's only 25% of teen users who are at risk, so no big deal. Other than that, does this study raise any concerns for you at all?

We've seen lots of studies come and go over the years that say different things, so I'm not sure what makes this one definitive.

For instance:

"Data from epidemiological studies have repeatedly shown an association between cannabis use and subsequent addiction to heavy drugs and psychosis (i.e. schizophrenia),” explained Dr. Jutras-Aswad.

That they have. But there's never been a clear causal link (IOW does pot cause people to use hard drugs or develop schizophrenia or are people who are at risk of developing schizophrenia simply more prone to using pot and later hard drugs?).

All that to say, obviously we need more research into this. But it has little or no bearing on legalization.

Would legalization help or hurt the teens at risk.

I don't see how setting up a system like we have with booze wouldn't make it harder for kids to get pot. The fact that more kids smoke pot than drink would suggest that is the case:

On a typical day, an estimated 881,684 kids aged 12 to 17 smoke cigarettes, 646,707 use marijuana and 457,672 drink alcohol, according to a report by the U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA).

[BubberMiley]

Interesting point, it seems to me that if a teen wants something bad enough they will find a way to get it. Legalization doesn't touch this issue.

Teens usually are only able to get alcohol from older friends or if they steal it from their parents. They can't buy it in school like they can buy pot because there is no entrenched black market for alcohol. It's kind of bizarre that someone would argue against reducing access to children because "they will find a way to get it anyway" and then pretend their opposition is because of the poor childern.

[guyser]

Interesting point, it seems to me that if a teen wants something bad enough they will find a way to get it. Legalization doesn't touch this issue.

A teen will get what a teen wants, no doubt.

But legalization does touch the issue. If legalized (presumably) then access is harder insofar as the kid has to ask someone else to pick it up or buy it.

Generally it is thought that suppliers will dry up since the trade is not lucrative, ergo the kids supplier is gone now too.

I know bootleggers for beer exist up north and the only buyers are the lazy ones who cant get to the store. So I am conceed the point that there will be a street level avialability for pot but not anywhere near what exists.