Alcohol vs weed

[alondouek]

Driving ability? You're seriously contending that cannabis is more dangerous than alcohol for a driver? Also, the latter has not been proven as a direct causality link. Henquet et al. The Environment and Schizophrenia: The role of cannabis use. Schizophrenia Bulletin 2005 Jul ;31(3):608-12

Again, I'm not going to have to argue that alcohol is more dangerous than cannabis when the AMA does that for me. Or just about any comparative study between recreational drugs. And even if I were to concede that cannabis is more physically dangerous, than the secondary effects of alcohol (fights, drink driving, other violence) far outweigh any possible effects of cannabis, both primary and secondary.
That's actually probably not true, especially if you consider worldwide figures rather than limiting your sample to Western countries With cannabis having over a 35% lifetime usage rate, it's quite likely it's higher than just about any other drug.
Medication which could potentially be more dangerous than cannabis? Xanax is far more dangerous than cannabis, though. That's what you're ignoring.

What? I wasn't drawing a comparison between alcohol and cannabis consumption - that was entirely your own construction. Studies have clearly demonstrated that cannabis impairs driving ability, according to many, including the Australian Drug Foundation.

Nowhere did I actually say that alcohol isn't less dangerous to drivers - I'm honestly not sure where you got that from. The irrefutable fact is, both can cause dangerous situations when consumed by drivers.

That's actually probably not true, especially if you consider worldwide figures rather than limiting your sample to Western countries With cannabis having over a 35% lifetime usage rate, it's quite likely it's higher than just about any other drug.

I strongly doubt more people worldwide take cannabis than paracetamol/ibuprofen, but that's irrelevant.

Medication which could potentially be more dangerous than cannabis? Xanax is far more dangerous than cannabis, though. That's what you're ignoring.

I still object to any serious physiological damage being done by cannabis. Social harm is at least as high with alcohol. Actually, scratch that, there is no way in the world that alcohol has a lesser potential for social harm than cannabis. Cannabis is far less addictive, has benign behavioural effects (as opposed to alcohol...) and a casual user can even very easily hide its usage from friends/family if they are concerned (which they shouldn't be). Oh, and that's just a false stigma. Cannabis users are no less productive than the general population. Ask Bill Clinton. The high doesn't last for longer than a few hours with cannabis, so unless you are completely dependent on it (highly unlikely), there won't be a significant adverse impact on your productivity. Most cannabis users use the drug once a week, at most. You're treating cannabis users as some subset of the population which is fucked up - whereas over a fifth of Australians have used it in the past year. I even read a paper some time (can't find it now) which suggested that there is absolutely no correlation between occupation/salary and cannabis usage, with academia having a really high usage rate if I remember correctly.

60% of overdose deaths in the US are medicinal drugs, by the way. 1 2

You're making the same argument again and again: "X is more dangerous than cannabis, so is Y" - this is irrelevant. Statistically, crossing Dandenong Rd is probably 'more dangerous' (hyperbole, but whatever) than cannabis. However, that's not my point. My point is that cannabis is dangerous.

Aside from the fact that you've made another irrelevant comparison to alcohol, the fact that you stated that "Cannabis is far less addictive" undermines your contention. Cannabis is, biochemically speaking, very addictive. Tetrahydrocannabinol has been proven to have a direct causal relationship with cannabis addiction. You speak of false stigma regarding cannabis usage and habits, but you demonstrate your own. You promote and effectively laud any potential or anecdotal benefits, and neglect to consider to overt issues that it causes. "Cannabis users are no less productive than the general population"? Pretty broad statement there... I doubt your considering those users of cannabis who don't fit your contention.

The fact that 60% of overdose deaths are medicinal drugs is irrelevant too. That's simply a matter of availability and abuse. The fact that medications such as Xanax are dangerous doesn't make cannabis any less so.

2. A regulated drug is safer than an unregulated one.
4. Users will buy cannabis whether you like it or not. At least stop them from funding organised crime.

2. What are you trying to say? Cannabis is certainly regulated - to the extent that it's not allowed. Also, its regulation, as above, doesn't detract from the potential risks associated with using it.
4. "Users will buy cannabis whether you like it or not." There's the problem. Didn't you just posit that cannabis isn't very addictive? This seems like addictive behaviour to me...

People being arrested for cannabis use? In Victoria? Hahahahahahahah.

I mean, I did clearly state 'possession', but sure, why not? In Victoria, NSW, Queensland and Tassie, cannabis use and possession is a criminal offence. And yes, you get arrested for criminal offences. That doesn't mean you end up in jail.

[Professor Polonsky]

Sure, alright, you're saying that cannabis has some dangers. I can accept that. The original point of the thread was to compare the potential dangers of cannabis and alcohol, and my contention is that it's irrefutable that the latter is far more dangerous.

Secondly, as for the legal status, even if cannabis is dangerous (which it probably is to some small degree), that is still not a sufficient reason to outlaw it. Legalisation provides many benefits, including ensuring the user's safety, freeing up money used to needlessly chase traffickers, potential for an excise tax, and taking money out of organised crime groups. That is actually why I believe that no drugs should be criminalised - you'd essentially be defunding organised crime. I think the net benefit from that is far greater than that of the potentially slightly higher levels of usage which would result, which you can then reduce again by treating people with substance dependence issues as sick people, rather than as criminals.

You're seriously overestimaitng the potential for dependence with cannabis. It is one of the drugs you are least likely to become dependent on.

"Heroin and methamphetamine are the most addictive by this measure. Cocaine, pentobarbital (a fast-acting sedative), nicotine and alcohol are next, followed by marijuana and possibly caffeine. Some hallucinogens—notably LSD, mescaline and psilocybin—have little or no potential for creating dependence."

Marijuana produces dependence less readily than most other illicit drugs. Some 9 percent of those who try marijuana develop dependence compared to, for example, 15 percent of people who try cocaine and 24 percent of those who try heroin.

And Alon, no, you're not going to be arrested for cannabis possession in Victoria, unless you're being very stupid about it.

[alondouek]

Sure, alright, you're saying that cannabis has some dangers. I can accept that. The original point of the thread was to compare the potential dangers of cannabis and alcohol, and my contention is that it's irrefutable that the latter is far more dangerous.

I'd agree with you. However, many people either look only at the benefits or only at the disadvantages presented by cannabis usage - why is why I've recognised both. I still think it's a harmful, irresponsible way of treating the body though.

Secondly, as for the legal status, even if cannabis is dangerous (which it probably is to some small degree), that is still not a sufficient reason to outlaw it. Legalisation provides many benefits, including ensuring the user's safety, freeing up money used to needlessly chase traffickers, potential for an excise tax, and taking money out of organised crime groups. That is actually why I believe that no drugs should be criminalised - you'd essentially be defunding organised crime. I think the net benefit from that is far greater than that of the potentially slightly higher levels of usage which would result, which you can then reduce again by treating people with substance dependence issues as sick people, rather than as criminals.

Of course it is reasonable to outlaw something because it is dangerous. If there is a means of preventing or mitigating exposure of the population to a harmful substance, I believe it is the responsibility of the government to do so. This is also why I believe that tobacco should be heavily regulated - I certainly wouldn't be upset if it were banned altogether. Nicotine is far more addictive than any of the other agents you cited; it has a 32% dependence rate.

Regarding organised crime; I believe you have a very naive view of that. Organised criminals do not solely derive their profit margins from drug trafficking - you're neglecting other major areas such as illegal gambling, sex trafficking, counterfeiting and laundering etc. etc. etc. By legitimising one aspect of their dealing, all you're doing is providing these criminals with a low-risk, high-reward means of generating money to fund their other, far more distasteful pursuits. Just because cannabis is decriminalised, doesn't mean that organised crime will disappear from Australia, or even lessen; I posit that it would stay the same, if not increase due to the 'haven' for cannabis traffickers that Australia would become.

You're seriously overestimaitng the potential for dependence with cannabis. It is one of the drugs you are least likely to become dependent on.

The figure of 9% dependence is not an insignificant one in the slightest. You're not lending any credence to your argument than by continually stating that "substance X is less addictive than substance Y, even though I've clearly noted that substance Y is still significantly addictive".

And Alon, no, you're not going to be arrested for cannabis possession in Victoria, unless you're being very stupid about it.

I would posit that possessing cannabis in a country where it has a criminal status - in direct contravention of known and well-publicised laws - is adequately stupid.

[Professor Polonsky]

I'd agree with you. However, many people either look only at the benefits or only at the disadvantages presented by cannabis usage - why is why I've recognised both. I still think it's a harmful, irresponsible way of treating the body though.

I think it's hard to place oneself in someone else's shoes and label their drug usage as 'irresponsible' when you do not have a direct experience of the benefits they draw from it - at best, you can receive secondary information via their explanation of how they are feeling. This, of course, leads to the libertarian argument - you should trust a person to make such decisions for themselves. I don't completely support this view, but it certainly holds some weight, especially with 'softer' drugs for which the potential for abuse by a casual user is lower.

Of course it is reasonable to outlaw something because it is dangerous. If there is a means of preventing or mitigating exposure of the population to a harmful substance, I believe it is the responsibility of the government to do so. This is also why I believe that tobacco should be heavily regulated - I certainly wouldn't be upset if it were banned altogether. Nicotine is far more addictive than any of the other agents you cited; it has a 32% dependence rate.

Firstly, the tactic of criminalisation has not been proven to be a successful one. If anything, a harm minimisation strategy seems to benefit everyone much more. Secondly, the benefits of criminalisation (which I have already pointed out) far outweigh the possibility that usage rates may increase due to a change in its legal status (which is questionable proposition by itself).

Regarding organised crime; I believe you have a very naive view of that. Organised criminals do not solely derive their profit margins from drug trafficking - you're neglecting other major areas such as illegal gambling, sex trafficking, counterfeiting and laundering etc. etc. etc. By legitimising one aspect of their dealing, all you're doing is providing these criminals with a low-risk, high-reward means of generating money to fund their other, far more distasteful pursuits. Just because cannabis is decriminalised, doesn't mean that organised crime will disappear from Australia, or even lessen; I posit that it would stay the same, if not increase due to the 'haven' for cannabis traffickers that Australia would become.

If cannabis is legalised, then there would be no organised crime revenues resultant from it. Just like the alcohol industry, for example. Sure, it will not completely dry up the coffins of organised crime groups, but hit them where you can would be my preferred way to go by it. Just because they'll still have other sources of revenue doesn't mean we should let them have their major one.

The figure of 9% dependence is not an insignificant one in the slightest. You're not lending any credence to your argument than by continually stating that "substance X is less addictive than substance Y, even though I've clearly noted that substance Y is still significantly addictive".

Well, firstly, the point was a comparison between alcohol and cannabis. But even looking at cannabis by itself, neither the potential for abuse nor actual harm caused by it to the average user justify making the average user into a criminal.

I would posit that possessing cannabis in a country where it has a criminal status - in direct contravention of known and well-publicised laws - is adequately stupid.

Right, but not when the law is essentially not enforced.

[mark_alec]

Organised criminals do not solely derive their profit margins from drug trafficking - you're neglecting other major areas such as illegal gambling, sex trafficking, counterfeiting and laundering etc. etc. etc.

Which is why many consider it better to legalise gambling, drugs and prostitution - since these are the primary 'vices' of society and will *always* exist regardless of the law.

If all drugs became legal, do you believe that organised crime wouldn't lose out?

[alondouek]

I think it's hard to place oneself in someone else's shoes and label their drug usage as 'irresponsible' when you do not have a direct experience of the benefits they draw from it - at best, you can receive secondary information via their explanation of how they are feeling. This, of course, leads to the libertarian argument - you should trust a person to make such decisions for themselves. I don't completely support this view, but it certainly holds some weight, especially with 'softer' drugs for which the potential for abuse by a casual user is lower.

I don't think that it's entirely uncalled for, for me to label recreational drug use as irresponsible just because I don't partake; I don't drive drunk, but I'm sure you'll agree that there's no problem with me looking scornfully at that. And I dismiss what you call the 'libertarian argument', as I strongly do not believe that each individual is should be able to make these sorts of decisions for themselves. You can call that Orwellianism, but I honestly do not believe that the individual should be allowed to perform certain acts that have a potential direct physical risk towards themselves and others, specifically if these acts serve no purpose other than 'recreation'.

Firstly, the tactic of criminalisation has not been proven to be a successful one. If anything, a harm minimisation strategy seems to benefit everyone much more. Secondly, the benefits of criminalisation (which I have already pointed out) far outweigh the possibility that usage rates may increase due to a change in its legal status (which is questionable proposition by itself).

Neither has decriminalisation, really. Both systems probably hold individual benefits and caveats, but I am of the opinion that decriminalisation and deregulation is a futile gesture that has very little positive impact. Obviously the aggregate 'crime levels' are going to fall if more things are made legal - so this is a fallacious argument to make (not that you're making that argument - rather it's one I've heard from others). As for your second point, I think you might have meant 'decriminalisation'? Even so, the 'benefits' you gave, I refuted, and I posit that usage rates would likely increase with a change in the legality of cannabis. Seeing as cannabis is quite widely used in Australia, all decriminalisation would do is propagate it. For the reasons I've provided previously, I don't believe this to be a good thing.

If cannabis is legalised, then there would be no organised crime revenues resultant from it. Just like the alcohol industry, for example. Sure, it will not completely dry up the coffins of organised crime groups, but hit them where you can would be my preferred way to go by it. Just because they'll still have other sources of revenue doesn't mean we should let them have their major one.

Again, you've neglected to see that fact that organised criminal enterprises are multifaceted in their business models. No serious organised criminal is going to deal only in drugs, or only in sex trafficking. All decriminalisation of cannabis is going to do  is provide a revenue stream that cannot be seized by authorities to mitigate the effect of these criminals. This revenue would almost certainly go towards funding other illicit activities.

Well, firstly, the point was a comparison between alcohol and cannabis. But even looking at cannabis by itself, neither the potential for abuse nor actual harm caused by it to the average user justify making the average user into a criminal.

As you've stated, the current enforcing of the law does not make a non-habitual and non-endangering user into a criminal, hence your point is moot.

Right, but not when the law is essentially not enforced.

It absolutely is enforced. If you set up a hydroponics lab in your house to grow cannabis, even to non-'industrial' proportions, you will be arrested for possession (and possibly cultivation? I don't know if that's a thing). This can lead to jail time. A google search provides me with an example.

Which is why many consider it better to legalise gambling, drugs and prostitution - since these are the primary 'vices' of society and will *always* exist regardless of the law.

If all drugs became legal, do you believe that organised crime wouldn't lose out?

Gambling, some drugs and prostitution are legal under license. I do not agree that they should be completely legalised because, as you've noted, they are vices. This is not a good thing in my eyes.

And yes, I believe that if all drugs become legal then organised crime would grow - Australia would become a drug haven, and this would allow these criminal enterprises to fund other criminal pursuits, such as sex trafficking (≠ prostitution, by the way) and the like. And why would we want to legitimise drugs like crystal methamphetamine and the like?

[Professor Polonsky]

I don't think that it's entirely uncalled for, for me to label recreational drug use as irresponsible just because I don't partake; I don't drive drunk, but I'm sure you'll agree that there's no problem with me looking scornfully at that. And I dismiss what you call the 'libertarian argument', as I strongly do not believe that each individual is should be able to make these sorts of decisions for themselves. You can call that Orwellianism, but I honestly do not believe that the individual should be allowed to perform certain acts that have a potential direct physical risk towards themselves and others, specifically if these acts serve no purpose other than 'recreation'.

Sure, let's outlaw bungee jumping and extreme sports and what not.

Neither has decriminalisation, really. Both systems probably hold individual benefits and caveats, but I am of the opinion that decriminalisation and deregulation is a futile gesture that has very little positive impact. Obviously the aggregate 'crime levels' are going to fall if more things are made legal - so this is a fallacious argument to make (not that you're making that argument - rather it's one I've heard from others). As for your second point, I think you might have meant 'decriminalisation'? Even so, the 'benefits' you gave, I refuted, and I posit that usage rates would likely increase with a change in the legality of cannabis. Seeing as cannabis is quite widely used in Australia, all decriminalisation would do is propagate it. For the reasons I've provided previously, I don't believe this to be a good thing.

No, legalisation would do a lot more good than just propagate cannabis. It would ensure users' safety, increase government revenues, decrease spending and so forth and take money out of the hands of organised crime (more on that later). Also, it's highly unlikely that it would increase cannabis usage - no correlation has ever been found between cannabis' legal status and usage rates (let alone causation).

Again, you've neglected to see that fact that organised criminal enterprises are multifaceted in their business models. No serious organised criminal is going to deal only in drugs, or only in sex trafficking. All decriminalisation of cannabis is going to do  is provide a revenue stream that cannot be seized by authorities to mitigate the effect of these criminals. This revenue would almost certainly go towards funding other illicit activities.

It's as if you have completely neglected to read my reply, and simply restated your case. If cannabis is legalised, organised crime will lose all their revenues from cannabis. Think about it for a moment. If there was an organised cannabis industry, like the alcohol one, where exactly would organised crime get any money from it? That's right, they wouldn't. And yes, I'm well aware organised crime groups have other sources of revenue other than cannabis, but considering that a substantial proportion of their revenues do originate from cannabis trade, it'd be a good first step. (I remember reading that the majority of their overall revenues do come from the drug trade, and over 25% of the illicit drug trade market volume is cannabis trade.)

As you've stated, the current enforcing of the law does not make a non-habitual and non-endangering user into a criminal, hence your point is moot.

It's true that the average cannabis user does not expect prosecution, but it is still not ideal to have to make an illegal transaction in order to acquire the drug. Even if there will be no resulting punishment.

It absolutely is enforced. If you set up a hydroponics lab in your house to grow cannabis, even to non-'industrial' proportions, you will be arrested for possession (and possibly cultivation? I don't know if that's a thing). This can lead to jail time. A google search provides me with an example.

Come on Alon, this is disappointing. Your argument here is just borderline stupid. In the case you've linked to, over 3000 plants were seized. A recreational user would not have use in gorowing over half-dozen plants - 1/500th of the amount we're talking about here. This was a seize not only in 'industrial' proportions, but rather large ones too. A quick calculation (using $600 per plant) yields that these 3000 plants have a street value of $1.8 million.
 

And yes, I believe that if all drugs become legal then organised crime would grow - Australia would become a drug haven, and this would allow these criminal enterprises to fund other criminal pursuits, such as sex trafficking (≠ prostitution, by the way) and the like. And why would we want to legitimise drugs like crystal methamphetamine and the like?

What. If drugs are legalised, then you completely eliminate the organised crime involvement in them. Yes, it's true that we might see more drugs here (although again, extremely plausible that there will be no such effect, see above). However, if the sale of drugs is legalised, you're pulling the plug on organised crime. Everything will be done by completely legal businesses, just like the alcohol or tobacco industry.

And no, legalisation does not equate to legitimisation. As I previously suggested, those with an addiction to a 'hard' drug (such as meth) will be treated as sick people, patients, not as criminals. Wean them off the drug.

[Markkiieee]

I party.
Sometimes 5 times a month, sometimes none. Everytime I do go out though I smoke and drink (I'm 17) and I've been offered weed in more than 10 occasions. I would never, yet I see alcohol to be fine. Smoking is bad, but I still do it.. (y o l o).

I don't know, I think it's the fact that weed falls under a "drug" and that makes me not want to go near it.

[slothpomba]

All political issues aside, thread over:

[Dayman]

I really do despise smoking not because of the harmful effects but just the whole idea of smoking I detest it.

[no steez]

All political issues aside, thread over:

(Image removed from quote.)

I always use this graph to suggest and prove how detrimental alcohol is compared to (lets say) lsd, to my friends who are basically future alcoholics haha

[no steez]

I party.
Sometimes 5 times a month, sometimes none. Everytime I do go out though I smoke and drink (I'm 17) and I've been offered weed in more than 10 occasions. I would never, yet I see alcohol to be fine. Smoking is bad, but I still do it.. (y o l o).

I don't know, I think it's the fact that weed falls under a "drug" and that makes me not want to go near it.

I also find drugs such as weed are offered a lot at parties. But did you know alcohol falls under the "drug" terminology.

[Russ]

Shame it's not a particularly scientifically valid graph then -.-

[Mao]

All political issues aside, thread over:

(Image removed from quote.)

Stop quoting that graph. It has no scientific basis. The statistics don't give a confidence interval anywhere near the range required to compare the actual harm of alcohol and weed. See: Re: Alcohol vs weed

I always use this graph to suggest and prove how detrimental alcohol is compared to (lets say) lsd, to my friends who are basically future alcoholics haha

Funny that, I use this graph to highlight the deceptiveness of inappropriate presentations of statistics.

[no steez]

Stop quoting that graph. It has no scientific basis. The statistics don't give a confidence interval anywhere near the range required to compare the actual harm of alcohol and weed. See: Re: Alcohol vs weed

Funny that, I use this graph to highlight the deceptiveness of inappropriate presentations of statistics.

Yeah I know it's not accurate. But it outlines (or suggests?) how LSD, is not addictive and you cannot 'overdose' on it solely. Alcohol on the other hand can be addictive and you can die from alcohol poisoning.