Legalisation of Marijuana

[nubs]

Is there really a reason to think that individuals exist solely in a vacuum though? You can say that private use is private but are you really able to completely compartmentalize your life like that?

(also what, doing good things doesn't cancel out doing bad things, that's sort of the point)

I was just trying to demonstrate a point. Of course there would be instances where someone's use will negatively impact others, and in those instances it would be perfectly acceptable to act against such an individual or prosecute etc, just like we do for alcohol abusers. So why can't we have a similar system? Allow the responsible users to continue using in their own homes, and have other programs for abusers. If someone's use is bothering you, no one is forcing you to stay, you are welcome to leave them be.

Sorry if I misinterpreted what you were saying
Also I dunno what you meant by the sentence in the brackets

[slothpomba]

I look at it from a libertarian point of view. It's my own body, why should I be punished for doing something that does not harm anyone around me? The harm done unto ourselves is also questionable.
...
Within the privacy of my own home, without the slightest chance of hurting anyone around me - I would still not be allowed to alter my state of consciousness through the use of a plant that has been around for longer than mankind.

How do you know what does harm until someone tests if its so (usually the government)?

Every other drug you've ever taken in Australia that has been licensed has gone through an unbelievable amount of rigorous testing.

Let's pretend it's not Marijuana for a second but random raw plant X. If you took plant X, on libertarian principals but you did get harmed, i can guarantee you'll be running to the government hospital to fix you up.

In a society like ours, we have a collective duty to not do stupid shit. While you're taking up a bed in the ER, you're displacing someone else who's there for a reason which probably isnt any fault of their own. You're also costing us all money.

Marijuana has little immediate harm, you can't OD on it, that's good. I'll grant you that. I think in terms of long-term harm, the jury is still out on that one.

It's an extraordinary thing to call the consumption of marijuana a crime. Being convicted of possessing a personal amount of marijuana will do me more harm than smoking it on occasion. These laws barely protect us, they make criminals out of non-violent individuals who are only looking to alter their consciousness or experience something new.

I think almost no one here will contend actually consuming marijuana should be a crime (as in criminal record, crime). I'm perfectly fine with it being decriminalised for small amounts and fines for slightly larger than that and criminal sentences for above that (because you could be trafficking it then).

And do you believe that grouping non-violent, occasional drug users with the violent is a good way of protecting 'people from their own choices and actions'?. Again, what is worse? Smoking a joint or having a criminal record?

Do you believe incarceration and prosecution (with the accompanying social condemnation and stigma) is more helpful than rehab for those who actually have a problem?

....

By prosecuting marijuana users, what exactly are you protecting them from? Sure there are risks - many of which can be avoided through proper education - but an overwhelming majority are able to lead perfectly normal lives. Many users would also say that their quality of life has been benefited by their use.

It seems you're basing this off pre-packaged American rhetoric when this isn't (clearly) America.

To the best of my knowledge, in many states it is decriminalised. Even in the states where it isn't, criminal setences are not usually handed down, they try diversion programs and all other kind of things first (i'm no lawyer and i could be wrong though).

If what i said above is true and to the best of my knowledge, it is, your point doesn't really stick.

Although I agree that protecting people from making potentially detrimental decisions is a significant role of the government, I don't believe prosecuting and perhaps even incarcerating is the right way to go about it. Why not leave it to education?

It wasn't that long ago in the UK there were unlicensed pharmacies (apothecaries). The whole idea is, most people aren't pharmacology or toxicology experts, you just have to take it on authority that when an actual authoritative person (someone who is knowledgeable in such matters) tells you X is harmful or Y is good, then, that is so.

Imagine the situation with the unlicensed pharmacies, even if knowledge of the medication was readily available and intelligible more beyond a thin sketch of the truth to an average person (and this is a BIG if), there is no guarantee people will even bother to check first. Education is no guarantee people won't do stupid shit. Most people barely pay attention in 7-10 as it is.

but arguments made with actual evidence instead of mindless propaganda and outright lies

Surely, you'd agree this is a bit of an exaggeration, otherwise, its starting to board on conspiracy theory territory.

How about a system that treats marijuana the way cigarettes are. Honest campaigns that would discourage people from doing drugs.

If the goal is to discourage people from doing drugs, as you contend, why even make them legal in the first place?

The only reason we do the same for alcohol and cigarettes is that, given how our society is right now and our history, it would be absolutely impossible to ban them. We do the next best thing and try to minimise harm and consumption. If alcohol came across my desk today to review, i'm not convinced i wouldn't ban it.

It's a farce to suggest we legalise something then tell people they shouldn't do it. It's a bit like allowing masses of poker machines and creating a whole class of addicts, then, simultaneously running campaigns to help the very same gamblers we created.

[ninwa]

Every other drug you've ever taken in Australia that has been licensed has gone through an unbelievable amount of rigorous testing.

Tobacco?
Accutane?

Let's pretend it's not Marijuana for a second but random raw plant X. If you took plant X, on libertarian principals but you did get harmed, i can guarantee you'll be running to the government hospital to fix you up.

In a society like ours, we have a collective duty to not do stupid shit. While you're taking up a bed in the ER, you're displacing someone else who's there for a reason which probably isnt any fault of their own. You're also costing us all money.

Marijuana has little immediate harm, you can't OD on it, that's good. I'll grant you that. I think in terms of long-term harm, the jury is still out on that one.

By that logic, we should also be outlawing things such as skydiving, bungee jumping, drinking alcohol, smoking cigarettes. I would argue a significant proportion of hospital patients are there through some fault of their own. Heart attack? Didn't eat properly. Cancer? Smoker/tanner. Broken leg? Shouldn't have sped through that red light and hit another car.

The jury is out on the long-term harm of a lot of things we consume on a daily basis.

I think almost no one here will contend actually consuming marijuana should be a crime (as in criminal record, crime). I'm perfectly fine with it being decriminalised for small amounts and fines for slightly larger than that and criminal sentences for above that (because you could be trafficking it then).

Unfortunately that's not the case. To the best of my knowledge, someone caught with marijuana is treated the same way as if they had been caught with heroin. However, I believe the penalties are lighter than for hard drugs like cocaine.

To the best of my knowledge, in many states it is decriminalised. Even in the states where it isn't, criminal setences are not usually handed down, they try diversion programs and all other kind of things first (i'm no lawyer and i could be wrong though).

Diversion is generally only permitted if a whole host of other criteria are met (e.g. prosecution must agree, first offence, minor offence - which a drug charge isn't, proof that accused won't re-offend).

If sentences aren't usually handed down for posession/trafficking of marijuana (would like to see some stats on this), it'll be because there are a host of mitigating circumstances - e.g. case recently where old lady with no priors was growing 5 plants for the purposes of relieving chronic pain.

Imagine the situation with the unlicensed pharmacies, even if knowledge of the medication was readily available and intelligible more beyond a thin sketch of the truth to an average person (and this is a BIG if), there is no guarantee people will even bother to check first. Education is no guarantee people won't do stupid shit. Most people barely pay attention in 7-10 as it is.

The job of the government isn't to protect you from doing stupid shit, unless it actually impacts upon other people. I have yet to see any evidence that marijuana consumption has any negative impact upon a society.

[slothpomba]

Tobacco?

Not a listed drug.

Accutane?

All drugs have side-effects. It's a risk benefit thing. It's been known for quite awhile it has some serious side-effects and it wasn't prescribed willy nilly (to the best of my knowledge).

When you take any drug at all (even something like paracetemol) there is a risk of something going wrong. It needs to be balanced against the therapeutic potential and need of that drug. Obviously, you shouldn't take drugs for the heck of it. To the best of my knowledge, Accutane has helped something like 12 million people. Across any population taking a particular drug you will find side-effects. Unfortunately, on the rare occasion, they were quite bad in this case. It's incredibly hard for fallible human beings to someones know the long term outcomes of drugs, they did the best they could and unless there is reason to suspect they buried their evidence, they did their due diligence.

By that logic, we should also be outlawing things such as skydiving, bungee jumping,

As far as i know those are actually surprisingly safe (in terms of injury percentage, at least in Australia). I could be wrong but something like football might even have a higher injury rate due to the heavy safety precautions (hopefully) taken.

drinking alcohol, smoking cigarettes

There are good pragmatic reasons why we can't. It's quite obvious we can't ban them (ala USA prohibition style) but i'm not keen on legalising any more addictive substances we can't easily remove in the future.

The jury is out on the long-term harm of a lot of things we consume on a daily basis.

Doesn't mean you should make it any worse, especially since we are seeing positive indications it does have a harmful long term affect.

Unfortunately that's not the case. To the best of my knowledge, someone caught with marijuana is treated the same way as if they had been caught with heroin. However, I believe the penalties are lighter than for hard drugs like cocaine.

*Twitch*

The job of the government isn't to protect you from doing stupid shit, unless it actually impacts upon other people. I have yet to see any evidence that marijuana consumption has any negative impact upon a society.

I think there is a regulatory role in not allowing addictive and/or harmful substances to be sold. Don't think for a second i don't acknowledge there aren't much worse drugs out there but as i said in an earlier post, just because it isn't as bad as some other drugs, doesn't mean you still dont need to justify on an independent basis why it should be allowed.

[Russ]

So on the whole "not a crime thing" (ie this)

And do you believe that grouping non-violent, occasional drug users with the violent is a good way of protecting 'people from their own choices and actions'?. Again, what is worse? Smoking a joint or having a criminal record? Do you believe incarceration and prosecution (with the accompanying social condemnation and stigma) is more helpful than rehab for those who actually have a problem?

This points to poor treatment by the legal system and black/white divisions between "criminal" and "not criminal". You don't need to legalize marijuana/other drugs to address this, you need to just not group them with violent offenders.

but arguments made with actual evidence instead of mindless propaganda and outright lies

Ugh. Cite evidence showing that the current prevailing stance on marijuana is based on "mindless propaganda and outright lies" then. If not, don't make hyperbolic statements like this.

How about a system that treats marijuana the way cigarettes are. Honest campaigns that would discourage people from doing drugs. They should protect us by treating us like responsible adults (those of us that are) instead of nannying us as if we don't know any better. Provide us with the various arguments and allow us to make a decision for ourselves instead of mindlessly locking us up.

Cigarettes are probably going to be illegal within our lifetime though.
Education is obviously a good thing and is beneficial for empowering people to make decisions about their own life, their own actions and so forth. As such, it's desirable to have it, but does it follow that we should allow people complete free reign to do whatever they want "as long as there is education"?

This argument would be much stronger for drugs like LSD, mescaline, ecstasy - where the long term risks can be non-existent if used responsibly. Why exactly are we be 'protected' from using those drugs? Ones that often turn users into pacifists and have minimal adverse health effects?

Ecstasy? Really? It's a party drug that has killed people. Do you really think legalisation and education is going to decrease the use of it at parties and make it solely into a hallucinogenic used in a controlled environment?

I was just trying to demonstrate a point. Of course there would be instances where someone's use will negatively impact others, and in those instances it would be perfectly acceptable to act against such an individual or prosecute etc, just like we do for alcohol abusers. So why can't we have a similar system? Allow the responsible users to continue using in their own homes, and have other programs for abusers. If someone's use is bothering you, no one is forcing you to stay, you are welcome to leave them be.

Sorry if I misinterpreted what you were saying
Also I dunno what you meant by the sentence in the brackets

Alcohol abuse in private is a prosecutable crime? Anyway, I'm questioning whether private use stays private. If you take recreational drugs in the home, for whatever reason, does that really never affect your life in other ways. One of the least debatable consequences of marijuana usage is that it can exacerbate preexisting schizophrenic tendancies. Other drugs obviously have other effects. In modern society things we do in private are never solely confined to the "private" realm, so how much can we apply the argument that it's an individual right to make choices that "only affect us"?

I was referring to when S@S said that you could be a saint but breaking the law would cancel that out.

The job of the government isn't to protect you from doing stupid shit, unless it actually impacts upon other people. I have yet to see any evidence that marijuana consumption has any negative impact upon a society.

Marijuana is illegal, legalisation should require proof that it's safe, no?

[nubs]

How do you know what does harm until someone tests if its so (usually the government)?

Every other drug you've ever taken in Australia that has been licensed has gone through an unbelievable amount of rigorous testing.

Let's pretend it's not Marijuana for a second but random raw plant X. If you took plant X, on libertarian principals but you did get harmed, i can guarantee you'll be running to the government hospital to fix you up.

I never said anything to the contrary, so I'm not entirely sure how this is relevant?

In a society like ours, we have a collective duty to not do stupid shit. While you're taking up a bed in the ER, you're displacing someone else who's there for a reason which probably isnt any fault of their own. You're also costing us all money.

In addition to ninwa's reply, I think you're assuming that legalising soft drugs will increase the number of health problems and costs. Those costs would most likely be over-compensated for by the reduction in the amount drug enforcement agencies spend on enforcing these laws as well as the millions made through the taxation of them.

Furthermore, a lot of the short term health problems that cause people to be hospitalised through the use of such drugs are due to poor education and impure products. Especially when it comes to pills, it's not likely you'll just find MDMA in them - you're likely to find speed and meth as well. Basically, by continuing the prohibition you're effectively making people resort to buying drugs off people with no qualifications who have produced them in unclean environments - you have no idea what you're getting.

I think almost no one here will contend actually consuming marijuana should be a crime (as in criminal record, crime). I'm perfectly fine with it being decriminalised for small amounts and fines for slightly larger than that and criminal sentences for above that (because you could be trafficking it then).

I don't believe decriminalisation of soft drugs is enough. Legalising them will take them away from drug syndicates and cartels, leaving them with much less power and influence. Drugs will be cleaner and safer to use, and the government will be able to profit from it as well. If you're worried about increased use, I'd much rather have people using ecstasy on a night out than getting blind drunk. The health and social implications of taking ecstasy are much less severe than getting drunk.

To the best of my knowledge, in many states it is decriminalised. Even in the states where it isn't, criminal setences are not usually handed down, they try diversion programs and all other kind of things first (i'm no lawyer and i could be wrong though).

The ACT, Northern Territory and South Australia are the only places where possession is decriminalised - everywhere else people caught possessing marijuana could receive a large fine or jail time and they will have a criminal record unless it's their first offence, in which case a criminal conviction is unlikely but not unheard of.

Education is no guarantee people won't do stupid shit. Most people barely pay attention in 7-10 as it is.

When it comes to alcohol, people have learnt not to drink and drive, not to take antibiotics or other medication with it, not to climb up to high places. Of course not everyone will listen, does that mean it should be prohibited for everyone? Just because a few people abuse it? Why not keep the 'abuse' of it illegal, like getting high and driving etc, why should the use of it be stamped out full stop?

Surely, you'd agree this is a bit of an exaggeration, otherwise, its starting to board on conspiracy theory territory.

Perhaps, but by looking back on what I was subjected to in my final year of high school just reinforces my belief that there are 'dissuasian' programs out there that are nothing more than outright lies and unwarranted scare tactics. Drug Free World and Drug Free Australia are examples of such organisations.

If the goal is to discourage people from doing drugs, as you contend, why even make them legal in the first place?

It's a farce to suggest we legalise something then tell people they shouldn't do it. It's a bit like allowing masses of poker machines and creating a whole class of addicts, then, simultaneously running campaigns to help the very same gamblers we created.

I should have worded that differently, I meant to discourage irresponsible and potentially dangerous use. Even so, as we have seen, the prohibition on drugs has hardly discouraged people from doing them, and a different approach is needed. You're assuming that legalising drugs will create a whole new class of addicts. There are already addicts out there, and the current system is not helping them very much (treating them like criminals etc.)

I believe soft drugs should be legalised, and then accompanied with campaigns or programs that explain risks of consumption, as well as how to use them safely, rather than campaigns or programs that have the sole aim of halting the use altogether.
Legalisation of soft drugs ---> cleaner products, less health risks, less exposure to dangerous criminals, better treatment of users, possible decreases in the consumption of alcohol, decrease in exposure to hard drugs, possible decrease in hard drug use, less money wasted, more money earned, less hypocrisy in the justice system etc etc

[nubs]

Ugh. Cite evidence showing that the current prevailing stance on marijuana is based on "mindless propaganda and outright lies" then. If not, don't make hyperbolic statements like this.

It's pretty obvious that what most of us have been subjected to in school was propaganda... (information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.)
And yes there have been many lies told in order to discourage the use of marijuana. Organisations such as Drug Free Australia still spread the rumours that cannabis use kills brain cells (disproved countless times). A number of studies have shown the opposite effect. Stimulation of brain cell growth has be linked to marijuana use (Xia Zhang's research at the University of Saskatchewan was the first of many to show this))
Also, marijuana leads to the use of harder drugs (false)
Marijuana consumption leads to cancer (false)
Then there are extreme exaggerations that link marijuana use to the development of mental disorders such as schizophrenia, without mentioning that only regular adolescent users with genetic predispositions towards such conditions are at risk. I could go on and on and on about what I was told in high school as well as what I can find on the web.

Cigarettes are probably going to be illegal within our lifetime though.
Education is obviously a good thing and is beneficial for empowering people to make decisions about their own life, their own actions and so forth. As such, it's desirable to have it, but does it follow that we should allow people complete free reign to do whatever they want "as long as there is education"?

I highly doubt that tobacco will be illegal within our lifetime, and I am certain that there will not be another prohibition on alcohol for a very, very long time. I seriously doubt the government is willing to throw away such a  huge source of tax revenue and frustrate a vast number of smokers, as well as set up the potential for greater levels of organised crime and the violence associated with it by prohibiting tobacco...

Ecstasy? Really? It's a party drug that has killed people. Do you really think legalisation and education is going to decrease the use of it at parties and make it solely into a hallucinogenic used in a controlled environment?

Yes, really. Pure MDMA is one of the safest illicit substances out there, much safer than LSD, marijuana, alcohol or tobacco. The deaths associated with its use have been because of impure pills - often tainted by speed and meth - and improper use. Safe use is not complicated in the slightest, and if it were a legal and regulated substance, correct dosage wouldn't be a problem either. Most people know how much alcohol their bodies can withstand, with similar forms of education, the same would go for MDMA (which has a higher ratio of fatal dose to effective dose than alcohol)
http://loopylettuce.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/drugdoses.jpg

Alcohol abuse in private is a prosecutable crime? Anyway, I'm questioning whether private use stays private. If you take recreational drugs in the home, for whatever reason, does that really never affect your life in other ways. One of the least debatable consequences of marijuana usage is that it can exacerbate preexisting schizophrenic tendancies. Other drugs obviously have other effects. In modern society things we do in private are never solely confined to the "private" realm, so how much can we apply the argument that it's an individual right to make choices that "only affect us"?

Oh, yeah. Well when you put it that way I doubt that private use would have no effect on any other part of your life, but I believe the only cause for concern would be if private use had a noticeable negative impact on the lives of others. There is enough evidence out there - and enough 'living proof' - to suggest that occasional use of marijuana or LSD will almost never negatively impact society, and in fact there are many instances where it has done just the opposite. Kary Mullis, for example, believes with certainty that he would not have won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry if it weren't for his LSD use. Steve Jobs believed he wouldn't have been able to achieve the success he did without the use of drugs. Not to mention the countless musicians and writes who have drawn inspiration from drugs such as LSD and marijuana. More than anything, using a drug like LSD is an experience, just liking sky-diving or bungee jumping. It's often an incredibly fulfilling experience, one with minimal risks, and to prohibit someone form experiencing something entirely within their own minds is incredibly unfair, especially when the negative implications (if there are any) of the use of such a substance on society are basically unnoticeable, whereas the positive ones are countless.

[ninwa]

All drugs have side-effects. It's a risk benefit thing. It's been known for quite awhile it has some serious side-effects and it wasn't prescribed willy nilly (to the best of my knowledge).

When you take any drug at all (even something like paracetemol) there is a risk of something going wrong. It needs to be balanced against the therapeutic potential and need of that drug. Obviously, you shouldn't take drugs for the heck of it. To the best of my knowledge, Accutane has helped something like 12 million people. Across any population taking a particular drug you will find side-effects. Unfortunately, on the rare occasion, they were quite bad in this case. It's incredibly hard for fallible human beings to someones know the long term outcomes of drugs, they did the best they could and unless there is reason to suspect they buried their evidence, they did their due diligence.

Do the side effects of marijuana use outweigh those of accutane/roaccutane/similar?

As far as i know those are actually surprisingly safe (in terms of injury percentage, at least in Australia). I could be wrong but something like football might even have a higher injury rate due to the heavy safety precautions (hopefully) taken.

As is marijuana (again, to the best of my knowledge)

There are good pragmatic reasons why we can't. It's quite obvious we can't ban them (ala USA prohibition style) but i'm not keen on legalising any more addictive substances we can't easily remove in the future.

Is marijuana addictive? A quick Google search reveals that, at the very least, the jury is out on this one. Why are tobacco and alcohol (substances KNOWN to be addictive) okay but marijuana isn't?

Research has shown the overall addiction potential for cannabis to be less than for caffeine, tobacco, alcohol, cocaine or heroin, but slightly higher than that for psilocybin, mescaline, LSD.

To those who are about to jump down my throat for quoting Wikipedia - please note that all these statements have citations.

Doesn't mean you should make it any worse, especially since we are seeing positive indications it does have a harmful long term affect.

Apart from the usual damage to the lung that naturally comes from inhaling vapours/smoke (not a valid argument IMO, unless you feel like banning all petrol emissions and second hand smoke too), what is this harmful long term effect? Citation please.

*Twitch*

Not sure what your point is here, apart from being unnecessarily patronising. That image shows that cocaine is high on the scale of dangerous substances. Isn't that EXACTLY what I just said? Cocaine is a hard drug? It has a comparatively higher penalty for trafficking and possession offences. Go look it up yourself: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/dpacsa1981422/

edit: I see you think I was comparing heroin to cocaine. I was not, fyi - reread post plz

I think there is a regulatory role in not allowing addictive and/or harmful substances to be sold. Don't think for a second i don't acknowledge there aren't much worse drugs out there but as i said in an earlier post, just because it isn't as bad as some other drugs, doesn't mean you still dont need to justify on an independent basis why it should be allowed.

Well, why not? Why is it so bad to ask for consistency in the law? I'd be equally happy with either legalising marijuana, or banning alcohol/tobacco. The point is that the government (and all those supporting criminalisation of marijuana) is being hypocritical.

[Russ]

Because I'm busy (ironically on the phone to someone who's high)

It's pretty obvious that what most of us have been subjected to in school was propaganda... (information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.)
<snip for shortness>

That's not evidence etc. etc.

Yes, really. Pure MDMA is one of the safest illicit substances out there, much safer than LSD, marijuana, alcohol or tobacco. The deaths associated with its use have been because of impure pills - often tainted by speed and meth - and improper use. Safe use is not complicated in the slightest, and if it were a legal and regulated substance, correct dosage wouldn't be a problem either. Most people know how much alcohol their bodies can withstand, with similar forms of education, the same would go for MDMA (which has a higher ratio of fatal dose to effective dose than alcohol)
http://loopylettuce.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/drugdoses.jpg

Oh an uncited pic from a stoner blog, I'm convinced it's safe now -.-. Ecstasy is nowhere near as bad as its amphetamine cousins sure, but http://cjasn.asnjournals.org/content/3/6/1852.long // http://bja.oxfordjournals.org/content/96/6/678.full
Legalize it and it's definitely no only going to be used in bedrooms for a euphoric effect

Oh, yeah. Well when you put it that way I doubt that private use would have no effect on any other part of your life, but I believe the only cause for concern would be if private use had a noticeable negative impact on the lives of others. There is enough evidence out there - and enough 'living proof' - to suggest that occasional use of marijuana or LSD will almost never negatively impact society, and in fact there are many instances where it has done just the opposite. Kary Mullis, for example, believes with certainty that he would not have won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry if it weren't for his LSD use. Steve Jobs believed he wouldn't have been able to achieve the success he did without the use of drugs. Not to mention the countless musicians and writes who have drawn inspiration from drugs such as LSD and marijuana. More than anything, using a drug like LSD is an experience, just liking sky-diving or bungee jumping. It's often an incredibly fulfilling experience, one with minimal risks, and to prohibit someone form experiencing something entirely within their own minds is incredibly unfair, especially when the negative implications (if there are any) of the use of such a substance on society are basically unnoticeable, whereas the positive ones are countless.

Yes, selected anecdotes are definitely evidence that marijuana has "unnoticeable" negative effects and "countless" positive ones.

[mark_alec]

Ugh. Cite evidence showing that the current prevailing stance on cannabis is based on "mindless propaganda and outright lies" then. If not, don't make hyperbolic statements like this.

If you read the history of cannabis you will see that it was based on "mindless propaganda" (reefer madness anyone?), which piggybacked on people's racist tendencies, hence why the first laws against it were in the southern states bordering on Mexico. The same happened with opium laws, which targeted the Chinese.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=n2QJ74U_W0w <-- song about dope.

[nubs]

Firstly, I never said 'the current prevailing stance on marijuana is based on "mindless propaganda and outright lies"', all I said was as school kids, some of us had been subjected to a lot of lies and exaggeration when it came to these issues, and I mentioned them earlier. You're bending my words.

Legalize it and it's definitely no only going to be used in bedrooms for a euphoric effect

I know, and I spoke about this earlier? I said I'd rather have people on MDMA than alcohol at clubs.

Oh an uncited pic from a stoner blog, I'm convinced it's safe now -.-

Do you really have to be so sarcastic? How about you cut that crap out.
The original image is from a report published by Sigma Xi
http://www.americanscientist.org/libraries/documents/200645104835_307.pdf

http://cjasn.asnjournals.org/content/3/6/1852.long // http://bja.oxfordjournals.org/content/96/6/678.full

These two links you posted - it clearly states that the risks outlined in them are only possible through 'large-scale consumption of MDMA', and even then 'serious acute [illnesses] remain relatively rare', so I'm not sure what you were trying to prove by posting those. If anything they strengthen my argument, use it safely and there won't be too much of a problem.

Yes, selected anecdotes are definitely evidence that marijuana has "unnoticeable" negative effects and "countless" positive ones.

Yeah I admit that it was pretty stupid of me to post that last part the way I did. All I was trying to demonstrate was that it is quite hard to find examples where soft drug use has resulted in noticeable, negative effects on society, but it is quite easy to find examples where use has had positive ones. Not conclusive evidence by any means.

Also, you're bending my words again, I was speaking about noticeably negative effects on others that are inescapable and are largely attributed to drug use alone.

[TheFedExpress]

"All I was trying to demonstrate was that it is quite hard to find examples where soft drug use has resulted in noticeable, negative effects on the people around you,"

A family of close friendship to my own family has been torn apart due to marijuana use. Their son, unknown to them, was a user of marijuana, and as a side effect of this so called "soft" drug, developed psychosis.
He no longer wants anything to do with his parents or other family members, despite their best efforts to help him. They have not seen him in some time because he refuses to associate with them.

Every time I hear the term "soft drug" I think of this family's horrible situation and it makes me cringe.   

[nubs]

I can tell this is a very personal issue for you, so I don't want to say anything that might anger you. All I can really say is that it might be unfair to attribute the cause for the developed psychosis on marijuana alone. The biggest problem is that we're not entirely sure if schizophrenics (or potential schizophrenics) are more likely to do marijuana, or whether marijuana users are more likely to develop schizophrenia.

A trend that supports the former (to a certain extent) is that marijuana was basically shared between a small number of hepcats and beatniks in the 1940s, and since the 1950s use has gone up exponentially as has the potency. Despite this extreme growth in consumption among youths, rates of schizophrenia in the US (couldn't find anything for Australia) have remained the same, and by some standards have decreased. For as long as it has been tracked, schizophrenia has been found to effect 1% of the population.
This may not tell the correct trend though, perhaps due to sampling errors or changes in the criteria that are used to diagnose someone as schizophrenic etc etc

The jury is still out on whether or not marijuana can cause schizophrenia. There are certainly trends which suggest that it may be linked to it, and may even increase the chances of developing it, but it's always 'may cause...', 'might increase' or 'is linked to'.

A number of recent studies suggest that regular use from a young age can bring forward the onset of schizophrenia by up to 3 years, which suggests that those affected were likely to develop it regardless.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21300939

Other studies have indicated that young, occasional or rare users (<16) had a 2-3% chance of developing schizophrenia, as opposed to the regular 1%, while frequent young users had a 6% chance. Again, this is just a trend, correlation does not mean causation, but it is hard to ignore.

Another group of studies suggest that only young individuals with genetic predispositions towards developing such conditions need to be worried.

That being said, no one is talking about legalising marijuana for people under the age of 18, or even 21. That should remain illegal, especially when there is a chance that smoking it as an adolescent may increase the chances of developing psychosis. This is about adult use.

[ninwa]

Cigarettes are probably going to be illegal within our lifetime though.

Doubtful, also irrelevant

Education is obviously a good thing and is beneficial for empowering people to make decisions about their own life, their own actions and so forth. As such, it's desirable to have it, but does it follow that we should allow people complete free reign to do whatever they want "as long as there is education"?

Yes, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else

Ecstasy? Really? It's a party drug that has killed people. Do you really think legalisation and education is going to decrease the use of it at parties and make it solely into a hallucinogenic used in a controlled environment?

For the record, I'm not for legalising ecstacy at this point. However, legalisation and education at the very least will change its perception from being an illegal/banned substance (and therefore more attractive to the rebel lyf teens). That has 2 benefits: decreases its attractiveness, and increases knowledge of the dangers of ecstacy.

Alcohol abuse in private is a prosecutable crime? Anyway, I'm questioning whether private use stays private. If you take recreational drugs in the home, for whatever reason, does that really never affect your life in other ways. One of the least debatable consequences of marijuana usage is that it can exacerbate preexisting schizophrenic tendancies. Other drugs obviously have other effects. In modern society things we do in private are never solely confined to the "private" realm, so how much can we apply the argument that it's an individual right to make choices that "only affect us"?

Not sure why you're only applying this to marijuana when almost anything we use "privately" will have that kind of effect (unless you're a hermit)

Marijuana is illegal, legalisation should require proof that it's safe, no?

There IS proof that it's safe. You really think all of these governments (almost all first-world, technologically and scientifically advanced states) would legalise a dangerous drug willy-nilly?

[mark_alec]

For the record, I'm not for legalising ecstacy at this point. However, legalisation and education at the very least will change its perception from being an illegal/banned substance (and therefore more attractive to the rebel lyf teens). That has 2 benefits: decreases its attractiveness, and increases knowledge of the dangers of ecstacy.

Here is the source to a scientific article written by the former head of the UK's Advisory Council for the Misuse of Drugs that shows that ecstasy is safer than horseriding (aptly named, equasy) - http://www.synchronium.net/2009/11/02/equasy/