Decriminalization vs. Criminalization

[normanchateau]

And that only worsens when they get drugs and too much alcohol into their system.

You don't think alcohol is a drug? Why, because it's legal? Or because it's a liquid?

How about nicotine? Is that a drug?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I use the term alcohol to differentiate liquor, which is legal, from illegal narcotics, much as the original poster decried alcohol being legal but drugs being illegal.

Ah, now we're getting somewhere. So by your completely arbitrary and ill-informed definition, drugs are illegal narcotics. Therefore, I presume you view antidepressants, antianxiety drugs, antischizophrenic drugs, indeed anything manufactured by the multibillion pharmaceutical industry as not being a drug.

OK, let's ignore yet another of your mistakes and/or lack of knowledge and focus on your term "illegal narcotics". What about legal narcotics? Physicians regularly prescribe them. Should we criminalize them as well and if so, why?

And what about illegal drugs which are not even remotely narcotic in their pharmacological action? Should we decriminalize them?

[normanchateau]

Uhmm, explain it to me. If you ban something, you are making it illegal. If it's not illegal, it's not banned.

I'm glad they banned murder. I can rest easy it will never happen again.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

BM, you misattributed the quote above to me. Error I assume.

[normanchateau]

There's nothing quite so wearisome as two barely literate,

In retrospect, I've been accused of far greater personal flaws than being "barely literate". Notwithstanding those flaws, this is a novel accusation. Given that my accuser resorts to morality-driven rather than evidence-based arguments to support his and Harper's position that permanent criminal records and potential jail sentences are appropriate for simple possession of less than 30 grams of marijuana, I'm curious as to whether his accusations against me are based on fantasy or evidence. I look forward to my accuser posting the evidence. :angry:

[apollo19]

I apply the same argument to those that wish to decriminalize marijuana: making marijuana possession and use legal while keeping the production banned simply promotes organized crime and all of the problems that go with it. marijuana should be made completely legal everywhere in North America or it should be illegal - no half measures.

I agree with what Sparhawk said, there really can be no half-measures in this debate over marijuana/other drugs. With that being said, you have the three parties positions: the Liberals support decriminalization, the Tories support enforcing current laws tougher, and the NDP I suspect favours completely legalizing it. I personally feel that the only way to stop the organized crime aspect is to make the industry transparent and legal -- but then it is highly likely the US would up the border searches even more on everyone. I don't think anyone really has a problem with someone having some fun on their own property with drugs, but once it gets into public areas, that is where the trouble starts. Perhaps some sort of legalization which would allow for private use, but if shown in public easily enforcable fines would be in order?

[justcrowing]

Modern liberalism attempts to devalue traditional morals and to destroy the concept of the traditional family, and conservatism attempts to uphold traditional moral values and respect for families as the necessary foundation for civilization. It must be recognized that until recently, when modern liberalism began to assert that it had the right to determine what is politically correct, conservatism was quite acceptable and even gave its adherents a sign of respectability, whereas it seems that modern liberalism, although it is quite a powerful political force now, never quite lost its reputation of inherent lack of respectability.

Modern liberalists hold that individual rights, no matter how diverse, should reign supreme, that personal gratification is an inherent right, and that the State must be made the guardian and provider of entitlements within those rights. As the traditional family and religions are the building blocks of a conservative society, modern liberalists endeavour to abolish both.

[sharkman]

...rather than evidence-based arguments to support his and Harper's position that permanent criminal records and potential jail sentences are appropriate for simple possession of less than 30 grams of marijuana, I'm curious as to whether his accusations against me are based on fantasy or evidence. I look forward to my accuser posting the evidence.  :angry:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hey normie, how are you doing? Still campaigning hard for the Liberals I see. Good for you! One suggestion, though. When making an argument, a good strategy is to keep repeating your points again and again on various different threads. It doesn't matter even if they are accurate, it will make them seem like 'gospel' to fellow supporters and rally the troops.

Keep up the good work!

[normanchateau]

...conservatism attempts to uphold traditional moral values and respect for families as the necessary foundation for civilization. 

How does giving my son or daughter a criminal record and potential jail sentence for possession of a few grams of marijuana uphold traditional moral values and show respect for families?

Alcohol was decriminalized in Canada in the 1920's and in 1933 in the US. Did that put an end to traditional moral values and respect for families? Or did it result in increased respect for the law and the eradication of organized crime as a purveyor of alcohol?

Why is it rational to jail people for possession of marijuana while continuing to permit legal sales of a far more harmful substance like alcohol?

If one did want to consider the issue of morality, consider the following question:

Is it moral to jail people for possession of marijuana while continuing to permit legal sales of the far more harmful substance alcohol? If your answer is yes, then I have a followup question. Why do the police often not enforce the law on possession? If the law is reasonable, then why is it infrequently enforced?

[normanchateau]

Hey normie, how are you doing?  When making an argument, a good strategy is to keep repeating your points again and again on various different threads.  It doesn't matter even if they are accurate, it will make them seem like 'gospel' to fellow supporters and rally the troops.

"It doesn't matter even if they are accurate..."

Thank you for acknowledging that my points about marijuana are accurate and if ever you find evidence to the contrary, feel free to inform others on the discussion board.

[Canuck E Stan]

From Normie

Fourth, ignore the central issue that it's utterly irrational to criminalize a substance less harmful than a legalized but far more harmful substances like alcohol.

from BubberMiley,

I've spent most of the last 20 years smoking it everyday. It's terribly habit forming, but there are no side effects when I decide to stop for a few weeks--just a lot of cravings and some vivid dreams.

NORML

Marijuana smoke irritates the lungs. Heavy exposure of the lungs to

irritation such as smoke increases the likelihood of lung cancer and

other lung problems.

Marijuana speeds the heartbeat and is unhealthy

for people with high blood pressure or other cardiovascular ailments.

Marijuana does reduce the sperm count and obstruct sperm mobility in

males within the normal range. These side-effects do not seem to affect

human fertility, and are completely reversible thirty days after

cessation of use.

Marijuana, like other drugs, crosses the placenta. While the effects

of this are unknown and there is no evidence that marijuana causes

chromosome damage, we advise women to avoid the use of marijuana,

tobacco, alcohol, or other drugs not prescribed by their physician

during pregnancy and nursing.

And you say it's LESS Harmful than alcohol?

How many kids you got BubberMiley?

[BubberMiley]

I don't contest any of those points. They just don't provide any rationale for making it illegal. Lots of things are unhealthy. Some things are healthy in some ways (lung damage) but very healthy in other ways (reduced anxiety). I'm talking cigarettes now though.

[BubberMiley]

Edited August 27, 2010 by BubberMiley

[Riverwind]

Oh wait, yes, I contest something (little blasted, heh). The alcohol thing: no way, man. Alcohol is way worse. Just think of how you feel when you wake up after drinking all night. With weed, you can wake-and-bake and then smoke til you sleep; the next morning you wake up ready to face the day. 

That is because you are still stoned. Alcohol is soluble in water so it gets flushed out of the system quickly - you may have a hangover but all of the alcohol is gone. Marijuana is fat soluble which means it stays in the system much longer so the next day you still have a significant amount in your system - possibly enough to still be impaired.

[BubberMiley]

Still be impaired? I wish. Alcohol just interferes with your system more. It's a poison. That's why it causes liver damage. Weed only affects your lungs (negatively) and the specific THC receptors that exist in everyone's brain. (See http://www.a1b2c3.com/drugs/pictures/brn004.htm)

[Canuck E Stan]

Your link seems to be impaired,can't get it.

[BubberMiley]

You're right. It doesn't work. It was just one of many sites discussing cannabinoid receptors, which were discovered by neuro scientists in 1988. They are receptors in the brain which appear to have no other purpose than to receive THC. It suggest the human brain has actually evolved (or been designed, that's another debate) to accept and use THC.

[Riverwind]

Still be impaired? I wish. Alcohol just interferes with your system more. It's a poison. That's why it causes liver damage. Weed only affects your lungs (negatively) and the specific THC receptors that exist in everyone's brain.

Actually, that is the biggest side effect of Marijuana: the THC collects in the nerve receptors in the brain and is flushed out extremely slowly. Chronic dope users experience a signficant decline in brain function as the THC accumulates and interfers with normal operation. In theory, this effect is reversable if you stop using dope but it can take years. Anyone who has tried to have a conversation with a chronic dope user has observed this effect.

Sure you can say casual users do not need to worry but the same is true of alcohol: liver damage is not a concern for casual users.

[BubberMiley]

I'm pretty chronic and I don't think...I...um...impaired or, what was that?

[BubberMiley]

Nonetheless, if I'm making myself dim (although actual scientific studies [not conversations with a stoned guy] suggest there is absolutely no brain damage), let me be dim. How is it to society's advantage to spend millions and billions on enforcement, et cetera, to save me from making myself dim?

[Riverwind]

Nonetheless, if I'm making myself dim (although actual scientific studies [not conversations with a stoned guy] suggest there is absolutely no brain damage), let me be dim. How is it to society's advantage to spend millions and billions on enforcement, et cetera, to save me from making myself dim?

None what so ever. But as long as the US keeps it illegal we have to keep it illegal here. Making it legal would just make the organized crime problem even worse because it would be easier for them to avoid prosecution if there was a legimate reason for them to have dope.

If you need a drug to escape reality - try alcohol. Works quite well and the taxes pay for healthcare instead of lining the pocket of some drug lord.

[BubberMiley]

First off, organized crime exists only because there is a black market. Black markets are created by criminalization of marketable products. There weren't Hell's Angels before drug laws, just like there was no Al Capone before prohibition.

It seems ironic that you would forfeit Canada's sovereignty on this issue considering some states have already changed their laws in a similar way. In the 1970s, California revised their laws as follows:

"in addition to repealing various minor marijuana offenses, S.B. 95 adopted six major forms affecting California's marijuana laws, which together have had a major impact on the fiscal costs of marijuana law enforcement in the state and in reducing the legal, social and fiscal costs of marijuana law enforcement:

No arrest or booking for individuals apprehended in possession of small amounts of marijuana;

No jail or incarceration for persons convicted of possession of small amounts of marijuana;

Furnishing of small amount of marijuana for no consideration is treated as simple possession, not sale;

Transportation of small amounts of marijuana is treated as simple possession, not felony transportation;

Elimination of life-long criminal records for marijuana possession arrests and convictions, and placing a two-year limit on the retention of such records and the use of such records. against individuals arrested and convicted of specified offenses;

Abolition of recidivist penalties for simple possession, giving and away and transporting small amounts of marijuana."

[BubberMiley]

Oh, and I don't like alcohol. Hurts my head. And my whole argument here has been based on not wanting to HAVE to give money to drug lords. I just want to be free to grow two or three plants of my own.

[Riverwind]

It seems ironic that you would forfeit Canada's sovereignty on this issue considering some states have already changed their laws in a similar way. In the 1970s, California revised their laws as follows:

This is not a question of sovereignty - it is self interest. Legalizing Marijuana in Canada would not eliminate the black market because the US still makes it illegal. The result is we end up with the worst of both worlds: the social problems that accompanies increased usage of a legal product _and_ the criminal culture that supplies the US market.

In addition, it also does not make a difference what some states may do - it is a federal law that bans Marijuana and the states cannot overrule that law even if they try tinker at the edges.

Oh, and I don't like alcohol. Hurts my head. And my whole argument here has been based on not wanting to HAVE to give money to drug lords.

Then I suggest a twelve step program.

[BubberMiley]

No, I enjoy it too much to stop. That would make me instantly nostalgic, and I see no reason to stop other than potential lung damage and stupid laws.

But again, we're talking small amounts here, so I don't think Canada would become Hell's Angels central because they're allowed to possess half an ounce of pot. I also don't see any reason for increased usage. The existing laws don't limit access in any way (in fact, they facilitate it to minors). I wouldn't be surprised if usage were reduced under decriminalization because the black market would collapse, leaving it in the hands of the few who would bother to grow their own.

[normanchateau]

Marijuana smoke irritates the lungs. Heavy exposure of the lungs to

irritation such as smoke increases the likelihood of lung cancer and

other lung problems.

Marijuana speeds the heartbeat and is unhealthy

for people with high blood pressure or other cardiovascular ailments.

Marijuana does reduce the sperm count and obstruct sperm mobility in

males within the normal range. These side-effects do not seem to affect

human fertility, and are completely reversible thirty days after

cessation of use.

Marijuana, like other drugs, crosses the placenta. While the effects

of this are unknown and there is no evidence that marijuana causes

chromosome damage, we advise women to avoid the use of marijuana,

tobacco, alcohol, or other drugs not prescribed by their physician

during pregnancy and nursing.

And you say it's LESS Harmful than alcohol?

Stan, thanks for providing the link. Much of the information in it is accurate. However the author, probably in the interests of brevity, did not provide complete information. Let's take each point in sequence:

LUNGS: Marijuana smoke does indeed irritate the lungs. However, there has not been a single reported case of marijuana-induced lung cancer in any national or international medical publication. I challenge you to find a single case. Furthermore, marijuana only causes lung irritation when smoked, not when ingested orally, e.g., in cookies. Smoke generally irritates the lungs.

HEART: Yes, marijuana does increase heart beat initially. So do caffeine and numerous other legal substances. However, there has not been a single reported case of death attributable to an effect of marijuana on the cardiovascular system.

SPERM COUNT AND SPERM MOTILITY: As pointed out in your link, the effect on sperm count and motility is fully reversible within 30 days. Therefore, a man seeking to impregnate his partner would be wise not to use the drug. In fact, prospective parents, male and female, would be wise not to use any drug, legal or illegal. This is general knowledge. And by the way, guess what else reduces sperm count and impairs motility? Either wearing tight underwear or taking long, hot baths. Neither is conducive to maximal fertility.

Now, let's consider alcohol which you think is less harmful than marijuana. Off the top of my head, here are a few effects of long-term, heavy alcohol use that come to mind:

Korsakoff''s Syndrome: this alcohol-triggered disease is characterized by permanent memory deficits and permanent brain damage.

Internal Organs: chronic use causes irreversible liver damage, irreversible kidney damage, as well as temporary damage to other organs.

Death: an overdose of alcohol is lethal. To the best of my knowledge, no deaths due to an overdose of marijuana have ever been reported.

Withdrawal Death: in cases of treatment for chronic, heavy alcohol use, institutionalization is often necessary to monitor withdrawal symptoms. These symptoms can include seizures, delirium and death.

Fetal Alcohol Syndrome: pregnant women consuming even small amounts of alcohol can cause mental retardation in the developing fetus. This is accompanied by irreversible brain damage and numerous other physical symptoms.

I could go on but I suspect I'm already boring anyone who has read this far. I stand by the point I've raised repeatedly which is that it's irrational for a harmful substance like alcohol to be decriminalized while a less harmful substance like marijuana is criminalized.

[normanchateau]

the THC accumulates and interfers with normal operation. In theory, this effect is reversable if you stop using dope but it can take years. Anyone who has tried to have a conversation with a chronic dope user has observed this effect.

Sparhawk, where did you get the idea that it can take years to reverse the effects of THC? If you have evidence or a published citation, I'd certainly like to have it.

Neither the medical establishment nor even neuroscientists who specialize in cannabinoid research are aware of this. Please share your source with the world.