Should Marijuana Be Legal?

[guyser]

You could argue driving tired is worse than driving drunk.

The sad part is that many people are compelled to drive tired by employers. I've driven while on the brink of nodding off, it's rather terrifying actually.

You are correct!

I did it almost every Sunday I returned from Muskoka. Then I switched to leaving later on , about 9 or 10 at night and since been good. But if I drive home at 4PM....i can get to Barrie and not even realize I have passed Orillia.

It is a huge problem , and I admit I am guilty as hell. I know for a fact I have gone up or down to the cottage and come alert at well over an hour and said to myself....uh...Newmarket Bradford Barrie Webers, dont recall passing any of them. As I get older I try to not do that anymore. Pretty sad really

I believe a test is out there that shows tired past point is worse than drunk.

And a new study from U of Utah shows the new hands free car systems are even worse than holding the damn cell phone and calling from it.

As we get better we get worse.

[Boges]

And a new study from U of Utah shows the new hands free car systems are even worse than holding the damn cell phone and calling from it.

As we get better we get worse.

Well that's another thread all together.

I'm more distracted talking to the person next to me than I ever was using my handset back when it was legal. I drive with one hand on the steering wheel most of the time anyway.

Using handsfree tech can be distracting because you're worried about how the tech is working, can you hear the person, can they hear you. Sort of like with a GPS.

[AlienB]

Marijuana is legal you just can't possess it without a license, also you cannot grow it without a license.

Its not illegal to inhale.

eg. traffiking - illegal, distributing, illegal, growing - illegal, possessing illegal. INHALING -NOT ILLEGAL.

oddly other drugs are like that too... now the question may be how much can you have in you without you turning into an illegal, or is it only that way in the US?

wow and this just 10 days ago.

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/media/nr-cp/_2013/2013-79-eng.php

Edited June 21, 2013 by AlienB

[G Huxley]

I guess "extreme" is a subjective term. How would you describe the high?

Hard to explain, but basically when I smoke cannabis (not very often) I feel happy, humorous, laughing after smoking, buzzed, peaceful and languid. I think languid would be the best descriptor.

Edited June 21, 2013 by G Huxley

[MadX]

Do you guys think that Trudeau or Mulcair will legalize it after Harper is removed from office in 2015?

[hitops]

It's not on the radar because far fewer people are chronic users of the drug. Because cannabis is illegal there aren't generations of people that are users.

Many people can casually use alcohol and tobacco with very little social impact.

No they can't, you're not seeing the big picture. The many that use it in moderation are exactly the people who get all kinds of health problems including many cancers after 30 years of it. I see this every single day, in the most literal sense.

[Keepitsimple]

No they can't, you're not seeing the big picture. The many that use it in moderation are exactly the people who get all kinds of health problems including many cancers after 30 years of it. I see this every single day, in the most literal sense.

That's news to me and I'd be interested if you have any links that draw a connection between the truly casual drinker and cancer or severe health problems. By casual or as you say, in moderation, I mean a glass of wine with a meal or a couple of beer on the weekend. On the contrary, it seems that a glass of wine every day may actually be a benefit to health.

[hitops]

That's news to me and I'd be interested if you have any links that draw a connection between the truly casual drinker and cancer or severe health problems. By casual or as you say, in moderation, I mean a glass of wine with a meal or a couple of beer on the weekend. On the contrary, it seems that a glass of wine every day may actually be a benefit to health.

Glass a day is fine. Smoking any amount a day is not, that produces lots of costs, as does drinking several glasses a day. You said 'casual' use, which involves binge drinking for lots of people.

The point, which is not disputed, is that alcohol and smoking on the whole produce enormous social and economic costs. Whether the tax on those behaviors off-sets that cost, I don't know but I doubt it. You pay lots of money for that lady who smoked 1/2 pack for 40 years and now has to be treated for lung cancer.

Edited July 18, 2013 by hitops

[AlienB]

Is there a glass a day law?

I would surmise many people who drink alcohol have more than one when they drink.

Also I would question the adverse health effects of eating pot or wearing pot. I would say it was more environmentally friendly than synthetic production.

Likewise some pot in a vapourizer could improve health as opposed to reduce it by stimulating brain activity.

Ok if Canadians consume over 2 billion litres of beer per year alone... I think Canadian are drinking more than one a day.

figuring perhaps 20 million Canadians are of legal drinking age.. that is 100 litres of beer (just beer) a year now lets add in the wine and hard liqour consumption amounts to get an average of "glasses per day... and I doubt this is a "even per day drinking" I am geussing some day are more than that.

ok now add in 25 litres for each Canadian of drinking age. that is 100 litres of beer 25 litres of wine.. now lets check out hard liqour.

Ok so that is the other 40%... ok so assuming 200 litres or so that is probably something like 750ml on aveage per day, now how much is a glass in ml... and I bet even if you are drinking 1 glass a day at dinner... I am guessing someone else is drinking the bottle.

A large glass is 250ml so that is 3 glasses a day on average based on 20 million Canadians being of drinking age but I would geuss it is more like 4 or 5 glasses on average for every Canadian who drinks. which is a litre or more of alcohol a day...

Edited July 18, 2013 by AlienB

[jacee]

http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/06/10/why-its-time-to-legalize-marijuana/

Simple pot possession represented 54 per cent of every drug crime that police managed to uncover. This is more phony war than calamity, waged by a government determined to save us from a cannabis crisis of its own making.

...

Theres growing consensus, at least outside the Conservative cabinet room, that its time to take a hard look at tossing out a marijuana prohibition that dates back to 1923a Canadian law that has succeeded in criminalizing successive generations, clogging the courts, wasting taxpayer resources and enriching gangsters, while failing to dampen demand for a plant that, by objective measures, is far more benign than alcohol or tobacco.

I agree.

Wasting our money policing marijuana use is silly, except in impaired driving.

Once it's legal, the crime and violence of distribution is gone. Take it out of the hands of the criminals.

If 54% of drug enforcement cost is for marijuana possession?

Gmab

I pay for that?

That's not a good use of my taxes.

Save the money.

Legalize marijuana.

Mandatory 6 months for 6 plants?

Oh sure, pick on the seniors.

Trafficking 14 years?

Give them a job in legal distribution.

The traditional marijuana tea in the evening is a health and sleeping aid. It's ridiculous that it was ever criminalized.

Edited August 1, 2013 by jacee

[Boges]

1 glass of alcohol a day isn't exactly a low level of alcohol consumption.

What about a cigar a week or so, or on occasion?

People can consume these products socially and be fine with it.

If someone smoked a joint a day, I'd question the claim that it's not addictive, if you have to do something every day even if it's not a because of a physical compulsion, I'd argue you're addicted.

I've tried to reduce the amount of alcohol I consume, 1) because in Ontario is offensively expensive and 2) It's not the healthiest product in the world.

But I still enjoy the evening, where I'm not driving, and I'm hanging out with friends and/or family where I can drink to excess. If I should fear cancer 30 years down the line because of that, I'm not living a very fulfilling life.

Edited August 1, 2013 by Boges

[GostHacked]

Glass a day is fine. Smoking any amount a day is not, that produces lots of costs, as does drinking several glasses a day. You said 'casual' use, which involves binge drinking for lots of people.

Lumping binge drinkers/smokers in with casual drinkers/smokers?

The point, which is not disputed, is that alcohol and smoking on the whole produce enormous social and economic costs. Whether the tax on those behaviors off-sets that cost, I don't know but I doubt it. You pay lots of money for that lady who smoked 1/2 pack for 40 years and now has to be treated for lung cancer.

We know alcohol causes liver damage and other problems.

We know tobacco (and with the chemicals put into it) are very dangerous.

Pot has the tar issue, but overall provides more health benefits than alcohol and tobacco combined. Also has less health effects than either one of them on their own.

[hitops]

Lumping binge drinkers/smokers in with casual drinkers/smokers?

We know alcohol causes liver damage and other problems.

We know tobacco (and with the chemicals put into it) are very dangerous.

Pot has the tar issue, but overall provides more health benefits than alcohol and tobacco combined. Also has less health effects than either one of them on their own.

For some people 4-5 beers/day is casual drinking. Let's just define it as 0.5-1 per day. Pot provides no measurable health benefits and likely does do harm, but this is not even in the same ballpark as the harm from cigarettes. So IMO it makes no sense to criminalize it while smoking is legal, we miss the revenue and push people underground which puts them into contact with other more harmful things. It's well-known that very intelligent, high-functioning people use pot with no issues. The same cannot be said for hard drugs, and smoking has become associated with lower-income, lower-education these days.

[AlienB]

For some people 4-5 beers/day is casual drinking. Let's just define it as 0.5-1 per day. Pot provides no measurable health benefits and likely does do harm, but this is not even in the same ballpark as the harm from cigarettes. So IMO it makes no sense to criminalize it while smoking is legal, we miss the revenue and push people underground which puts them into contact with other more harmful things. It's well-known that very intelligent, high-functioning people use pot with no issues. The same cannot be said for hard drugs, and smoking has become associated with lower-income, lower-education these days.

This is not true.

https://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&gl=ca&tbm=nws&authuser=0&q=marijuana+study&oq=marijuana+study&gs_l=news-cc.3..43j43i53.2362.8462.0.8727.21.4.4.13.17.0.187.545.0j4.4.0...0.0...1ac.1.pmD9H9I8JpU

Actually more recently there have been a lot of positive pot studies.

The real issue is with heavy smoking of pot. Casual use of pot actually can be used for various health benefits.

Now take away the smoke and put in edibles, and vapourizers and you eliminate most of the issue with pot.. THE SMOKE. the plant itself is good. You can drink pot with some tea and hot olive oil etc.. and you get all the lasting effects but no smoke in the lungs.

Try smoking tea leaves and you will have much the same issue, try smoking coffee, or smoking alchohol.

Pot itself is not the problem it is the culture that surrounds it that can create problems based upon use.

Smoking is common in some cultures for sheesha, pot, tobacco the list goes on.. water bongs etc.. can clean the smoke out a bit. None the less... pot is not the ememy, smoke inhalation is, as is the oxygen deprivation of starving the body of oxygen for prolonged periods.

This is a no brainer.. pot is not evil, all types of thick smoke are.

To find out the margin between "general heavy smoke inhalation" and "pot use in not smoke inhalation methods" needs to be done to be critical of the plant. I know you will find that pot isn't at all the demon it is made out to be in terms of lung cancer once you stop inhaling copious amounts of smoke on a daily basis. You could say the same as tobacco, nicotene in non lethal amounts is just a drug that calms people and some other effects. Then you get cigarettes crammed with all kinds of crap. When you look at THC for example as a cannaboid it is a beneficial substance, inhaling large amounts of smoke should be illegal, not THC.

Edited August 2, 2013 by AlienB

[Argus]

Heavy marijuana smoking may double risk of lunch cancer...

Sucking any kind of smoke into your lungs is NOT good for you. Hell, a lot of the air we breath isn't good for us. No one really disputes that. Why would you think deliberately inhaling smoke wouldn't be bad for us?

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/08/01/heavy-marijuana-smoking-may-double-risk-of-lung-cancer-canadian-study-finds/

[hitops]

This is not true.

It is. I don't think you have any idea how to evaluate scientific literature, if I'm to assume you believe the link you gave supports your point. A bunch of studies saying it's harmful, and a couple saying there may be some benefits in mice. That's not evidence. I review this kind of stuff for a living, nobody who would be taken seriously ever suggests studies in mice can be used to make conclusions about humans. That's useful for generating ideas for further studies, not for saying anything about therapeutic value for people.

Pot is harmful in some ways, but for most people not too significantly. You are right it is the smoke as far as lung issues, but the drug is also mind-altering and obviously can be used for abuse just like many other drugs including Rx drugs. We give it too some people for pain management and it can be quite useful in well-selected cases. There is no good quality evidence for therapeutic benefit beyond that. There is some lesser quality evidence that it may increase the risk of testicular cancer.

Edited August 2, 2013 by hitops

[Sandy MacNab]

It is. I don't think you have any idea how to evaluate scientific literature, if I'm to assume you believe the link you gave supports your point. A bunch of studies saying it's harmful, and a couple saying there may be some benefits in mice. That's not evidence. I review this kind of stuff for a living, nobody who would be taken seriously ever suggests studies in mice can be used to make conclusions about humans. That's useful for generating ideas for further studies, not for saying anything about therapeutic value for people.

Pot is harmful in some ways, but for most people not too significantly. You are right it is the smoke as far as lung issues, but the drug is also mind-altering and obviously can be used for abuse just like many other drugs including Rx drugs. We give it too some people for pain management and it can be quite useful in well-selected cases. There is no good quality evidence for therapeutic benefit beyond that. There is some lesser quality evidence that it may increase the risk of testicular cancer.

Have there been any highly-respected, in-depth studies on the effects of pot on the ability to drive? How do they measure the THC in one's system? Do they even know if there is a level at which one should appoint a designated driver?

I'm an old guy who doesn't have a crusade for or against. But, if a pot user can be as dangerous as one using alcohol, I could be a fanatic "anti" very quickly.

[hitops]

Have there been any highly-respected, in-depth studies on the effects of pot on the ability to drive? How do they measure the THC in one's system? Do they even know if there is a level at which one should appoint a designated driver?

I'm an old guy who doesn't have a crusade for or against. But, if a pot user can be as dangerous as one using alcohol, I could be a fanatic "anti" very quickly.

Good question, as far as I know it's conclusively associated with a significant increase in accidents. There have been instances where pot has been found after accidents, but little evidence that it was actually contributing.

Where there is no controversy, is that alcohol and driving is far more dangerous than pot and driving.

Edited August 3, 2013 by hitops

[PIK]

Everything is bad for us. Have fun and live ,it could end anytime and nothing to do with illness.

[ReeferMadness]

Good question, as far as I know it's conclusively associated with a significant increase in accidents. There have been instances where pot has been found after accidents, but little evidence that it was actually contributing.

Where there is no controversy, is that alcohol and driving is far more dangerous than pot and driving.

Alcohol has a tendency to make people aggressive and take more risks. Pot has the opposite effect. Behaviour goes a long way in contributing to accidents.

[jacee]

Good question, as far as I know it's conclusively associated with a significant increase in accidents. There have been instances where pot has been found after accidents, but little evidence that it was actually contributing.

Where there is no controversy, is that alcohol and driving is far more dangerous than pot and driving.

And both are illegal and impaired.

[Topaz]

I'm totally against smoking anything, it's not healthy, but I can see being legal down the road. I can see governments having the rule, one can have it legally, but one can't smoke it. Why do certain people feel they NEED drugs to fulfil their lives? As a teen in the 60's, I could never understand why people abused their bodies with drugs and many died from their use. I agree with one expert that was before the senate hearings on drugs, its not a legal act , its a mental health issue and people shouldn't be in jail for using them, instead they should get help to over come their use of them.

[hitops]

So Topaz that means you are at least 60 yrs old. If you don't mind my asking, what do you do for a living?

[ReeferMadness]

I'm totally against smoking anything, it's not healthy, but I can see being legal down the road. I can see governments having the rule, one can have it legally, but one can't smoke it. Why do certain people feel they NEED drugs to fulfil their lives? As a teen in the 60's, I could never understand why people abused their bodies with drugs and many died from their use. I agree with one expert that was before the senate hearings on drugs, its not a legal act , its a mental health issue and people shouldn't be in jail for using them, instead they should get help to over come their use of them.

In most cases, it's not that people have problems because they use drugs - people use drugs because they have problems. Drugs don't make things better but they are more often the effect than the cause.

I've often heard people say things like "alcohol makes so-and-so violent". I think that it's more true that alcohol allows the anger inside the person to come out.

[Boges]

I've often heard people say things like "alcohol makes so-and-so violent". I think that it's more true that alcohol allows the anger inside the person to come out.

Or because angry people like to medicate with alcohol. The anecdotal statement that alcohol makes people violent is never going to be something people can use to justify the use of pot.

I'm not opposed to more open treatment of pot, but people have to stop defending pot by saying that other legal drugs are worse. People consume alcohol responsibly every day by the millions.

Using angry drunks as a way to defend pot use is misguided. It would be the same as someone saying pot is dangerous because it tends to remove motivation in people and leads to obesity.

Edited August 6, 2013 by Boges