Canada Legalisation of marijuana in Canada

I was on my coffee break today, and I sat down on a bench that is back to back with another bench. On the other bench, one of my coworkers, also on a break, and an old woman were talking about legalization. The old woman claimed to have never tried it, but she was talking about how she supports legalization because she feels it is no worse than alcohol, and that the government should get the money for it instead of dealers. She presented the argument tha people are getting it anyway. I quote: "I'd rather see a young person smoke a fag than drink."

Needless to say, I was shocked.

____" AT60 "____

 

the bottom line here is WANT. if someone wants something they will get it, the more you try show them that its bad or try to keep them away from it the more we want. it doesnt matter if pot is legal or not. people will still want it and smoke it and try it regardless. millions of tax dollars are spent each year to fight the "pot wars" when that money should be turned towards fighting the real bad drug trade, when that is gone people wont see pot as a gateway anymore. also that money should be spent on real crimes not smoking a doobie. its about time things changed. and saying its bad and burying our heads in the sand wont stop pot from being smoked. the government needs to make this legalized and stop wasting our money, our time, the polices time, and turn towards the real threats here. Child & spouse abuse, child porn, murder, robberies, driving while impaired, racism, terrorism and war. STOP THESE NOT POT.

 

As much as we all are re-hashing our arguments as I said before pot opens the door to a whole host of problems just as any drug does!!

Hey does anyone exercise on these boards? you know... physical fitness?

 

I've been exercising regularly for about 2 years now. It originally started as trainin in preparation to join the military, and after I decided against joining, I never really gave up my fitness routine. Why do you ask? If you want to discuss fitness, start a new thread. Please don't hijack this one. Just becuase you're done debating doesn't mean everyone is.

____" AT60 "____

 

Whoa there I'm not hijacking, you know drugs, exercise, etc. they all have to do with how you treat your body. I was just curious. No need to use "hijack" terminology!! Thanks!

This is for the MD on the page....Do you think any of the hard-core drugs like crack, cocaine, heroine, etc. have theraputic advantages also?

 

Lady L, I too felt like you wanted the topic to be closed, it sounded like you want this forum to be turned into anything other then a pot debate like it was supose to be. And now asking if the big drugs have theraputic uses, that looks like you are trying to lump pot in with those drugs. but your question does have marit dont get me wrong. I dont think any of them do, but then again I can be wrong. I have heard the words let not rehash from people against pot before and it is always becuase they run out of arguements for their side and dont like hearing what we have to say. One of my friends said in a debate once :" Ok lets not rehash, let's smoke some hash and you can tell me I'm wrong."

 

No I have not run out of arguments but I could re-write all the negative affects of pot, I could re-write all of the research that proves pot is a gateway drug to harder drugs but what would be the point? If you don't care about those things I could talk until I am blue in the face and it wouldn't matter. Yes I have said my share and yes this is a serious question to the MD on the board if he found in any of his research if hard drugs like crack, cocaine, paint chips(ok that one is a joke), heroine have any theraputic advantages? I am serious! I want to know what he thinks...or you? Do you think hard drugs have any advantage?? Just curious!

BACK ON TOPIC my friends...here's a tidbit of research to show why legalization is still a bad idea:

"On October 18, Joseph A. Califano, Jr., president of the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University in New York, wrote an oped in the International Herald Tribune disputing Bonino's analysis. Califano, who was U.S. Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare under President Carter, opposes drug legalization because:
(1) Marijuana use by Dutch children doubled from 1984 to 1992;
(2) The U.S. Justice Department has found that more homicides, assaults and robberies are committed by people under the influence of drugs than by people committing crime in order to get drugs, and that drug-related crime in the Netherlands has increased under their liberal drug policy;
(3) The Dutch policy failed to eliminate black markets and organized crime, saying the number of organized crime groups in the Netherlands jumped from 3 to 93 from 1988 to 1993;
(4) Drug use and addiction under the Dutch policy has increased, and that marijuana by U.S. adolescents increased in the 1970s during this country's brief experiment with legalized marijuana, and (
5) Legalization would reduce health problems, like the spread of AIDS. He cites Switzerland's brief experiment with designating a public park where heroin addicts could use drugs and officials provided them with clean needles, condoms, counseling and treatment. According to Califano, the number of addicts increased to 20,000 and the Swiss government closed the park.
(Joseph A. Califano, Jr., "Legalizing Drugs Would Harm Young People in Europe," International Herald Tribune, October 18, 1996).

 

the MD on the board
Was that directed at me ? I'm not an MD, I hold a PhD in Pharmacology, large difference. I specialise the cellular effects of drugs, I don't ever work with people.

To answer your question :- most of the hard drugs around were originally used as therapeutic drugs. For example, ecstacy was used as an appetite depressant, and cocaine was used as painkiller (my dad was given cocaine when he went to the dentist). However, I wouldn't ever describe these drugs as having any therapeutic effects.

Now, thats certainly off topic as we're not talking about hard drugs, so I'd like to return to topic if possible.

The above poster made excellent comments that the money currently spent fighting "pot wars" could be better used elsewhere, education, health service etc etc. Educate people in the effects of pot, then leave them to choose. They are going to get it no matter how much the Government spends on it.

As far as it being a "gateway" drug, I personally think thats nonsense. I had many friends at college that used it to calm themselves during stressful times, and never turned to anything harder. The vast vast majority of people who use it for therapy (MS suffers, cronic pain or arthritis), use it because it helps them. Crack, heroine, whatever would not have the same effect, so there's no point it moving on to them.

As I stated above, I'm all for decriminalisation ! Stop prosecuting people who have enough pot for themselves, thus saving state money !

As for your "tit-bit", I'm sorry, but the information there is misleading. It is referring to hard drugs, espcially in the point on drug related crime. No-one has ever done a bank-job on pot. No-one has ever held up a 7-11 on pot, no-one robs houses to get money for pot. Its not a bad drug.

Meanwhile, I'll continue to work on the compounds we've made based on pot to fight various diseases.

Oh, do you know there are currently two forms of pot available on prescription ! Marinol and Droabinol, one is an anti-emitic (stops nausea) given to cancer patients on chemo, and the other is used as an appetitie stimulant given to AIDS patients to maintain their body weight.

Lets keep on topic !

Dr Malkie PhD

p.s. I'm sure everyone here is aware of the benefits of physical exercise, but that again is off topic. I work out regularly, and play sports three times a week.

 

Thank you Malkie, you have said it best. I have tried to say it but come up short. Either bury your head in the sand and say no drugs are bad or learn and move on, making pot illegal is wrong, no matter how many times we say it should not be. Read, learn, but dont stop and judge on right and wrong without knowing. I once at 15 judged everyone who did drugs as bad. At 16 I went to a party and POT was smoked around me. I felt guilty. I decided at that time to read and educate my self. I realized that POT should not be in the same catagory as the hard drugs. since then I have tried mushrooms and acid on my own but never because I felt a need to move on from pot. These things were there and I tried them becuase I was curious. I have not been addicted to any non-precribed drug, I have been to tylenol 4's. I at 18 after years of not trying any thing tried POT and now Im now Im a advocate for pot. I heard every arugment LL has said before. and it does not impress me. What has is the police officer who looked at and threw back a gram bag of pot to a guy at a pot rally because it was not worth his time to do anything. I smoke a doobie with a cop once. they dont want pot illegal as much as I do. Grow up LL and smell the roses and the pot

 

The Dutch policy failed to eliminate black markets and organized crime, saying the number of organized crime groups in the Netherlands jumped from 3 to 93 from 1988 to 1993;

And how many of those new groups, pray tell, were involved in the marijuana trade? As malkie said, your information is misleading.

 

Actually I believe I do list reliable sources. Yes, with my last post I am staying on topic. I seem to be the only one citing research or studies by University Presidents. Misleading? Those were facts I posted. Whether you agree or not, they are true!(Not to mention I cited my source of info)...has anyone else? Malkie you have some great info but when you say things like.."Some scientist think too much broccoli causes cancer.." Where did you get that info? Did you just hear that or what's your source? Just curious!

Darth: I would appriciate it if you would refrain from comments like
"Grow up LL and smell the roses and the pot."
I don't single you out and make personal attacks please don't do that either. I am here to bring up my points as all of you are, like I said I don't appriciate those comments and I am sure YoungJediNiagara would support me on that.

With all the evidence of different studies(like the one in the Netherlands I mentioned above.) I believe legalizing pot is wrong.

 

LL Im sorry for that last part , your right it was out of line. It didnt come out the way I wanted it to. I really dont have a peoblem with you at all, just please keep this topic on topic and dont swerve into exercise or other things please.

 

Ok Darth I'll stay on the topic of hash!

 

Is there any lurkers out there that want to speak up. we could use some new blood

 

This debate is has certainly done its turn, and we're going around in circles, so this may be my last post, as we are not getting anywhere. One on one bench we have the scientist, and the curious pot-testers, while on the other bench we have the "all drugs are bad m'kk" anti-drug people.

The arguements for both sides have been put forward, but no-one opinions have changed.

To reiterate my point, that the article you quoted, did not specifically mention pot in any of the points. It was an address about all substances of abuse.

Furthermore, Joseph A. Califano is not a scientist, he is an anti-drug lobbyist. Califano is an American lawyer and former Washington lobbyist who moved within the inner circles of the Democratic Party leadership. He served as Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare from 1977 to 1979. He now heads the Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA), an anti drug organisation in New York City. He does lecture at Columbia University's Medical School, but that does not make him a professor. Frequently guest speakers are invited to give their opinions on subjects.

So, I cannot take your posted article as being a reliable source. While it is exactly what he said, he is completely biased in the subject area. You need to be careful what you post as being reliable, and have a think about the sources you use. As a general rule, I would only recommend posting peer-reviewed articles.

There is a fantastic article here that destroys the points suggested by Califano with well written scientific evidence. I strongly suggest your read the article in question, and the references given at the bottom of the page.

Here are a couple of my points to address.

(1) Marijuana use by Dutch children doubled from 1984 to 1992
This is irrevelant as it is still illegal to supply or sell a child pot. No-one wants to see pot in the hands of children. The coffeeshops that sell pot do not want to get closed down for supplying pot to children.

(2) The U.S. Justice Department has found that more homicides, assaults and robberies are committed by people under the influence of drugs than by people committing crime in order to get drugs, and that drug-related crime
where does it say pot in that sentence? do people on pot rob banks to get more money for pot ? no. Do people rob houses to get money for heroin ? yes.

(3) The Dutch policy failed to eliminate black markets and organized crime, saying the number of organized crime groups in the Netherlands jumped from 3 to 93 from 1988 to 1993
where does it mention pot in that sentence?

(4) Drug use and addiction under the Dutch policy has increased, and that marijuana by U.S. adolescents increased in the 1970s during this country's brief experiment with legalized marijuana,
Drug use has increased. Thats an objective point. Perhaps pot use has increased where it is legal, but I am more likely to believe that more people are honest about using pot as they know they will not get into trouble, hence the number is artifically increased.

5) Legalization would reduce health problems, like the spread of AIDS. He cites Switzerland's brief experiment with designating a public park where heroin addicts could use drugs and officials provided them with clean needles, condoms, counseling and treatment. According to Califano, the number of addicts increased to 20,000 and the Swiss government closed the park.
How does he jump legalisation of pot to heroin users in a park in Switzerland ? They closed the park because it was over-subscribed, not because it didn't work. How does that relate to pot ?

See, in my opinion, the points in this "article" don't argue against pot. Perhaps they do argue that hard drugs should remain illegal, but there is nothing to relate that to the legalisation of pot.


Lady_Lucas to answer your queries on my honesty, please read the following articles. The were chosen from a search from recently published articles. I feel sligh

 

Hey I didn't mean to sound as the broccoli was an insult, if you felt that I apologize. You brought broccoli up not me!

Actually pot is mentioned in #1 specifically and yes children are relevant. Pot is a drug and obviously when they say drugs pot is included. That was what the whole memo was about..the response to legalizing pot.

Yeah some new blood is needed on the topic.

THank you for citing your source!

 

I mentioned broccoli to highlight the fact that while there is evidence to suggest something is good, there is often evidence that shows that the same thing may also have damaging effects. It was a side point.

You seemed to be missing the point of my above post. It is still illegal to supply pot to children. No-one is ever suggesting that it should be legal to give pot to children.

Please read the article I linked to - the particular section dealing with children is at the bottom of the page.

Furthermore, you (and the author of your address) group pot in with hard drugs which is inappropriate. Again, please read the article I posted.

Pot is a depressant which reduces locomotor activity (you move around less) and alters audio/visual perception. People on pot do not commit the crimes that are often referred to as "drug-related". They sit, content in the corner, admiring their floral wallpaper.

Stimulants, such as ecstacy, LSD, acid, coke whatever, cause an increase in locomotor activity often resulting in "drug-related" crime, often people doing stupid things because they have more energy than they know what to do with. These drugs often increase aggresion, leading to violent behaviour. People on pot are calmed down, and not violent.

The other point is that of addicition. Pot is not addictive, people don't need to come back again and again for another hit. Heroin is addictive, and is also expensive (compared to pot) and hence addicts (who often lose their jobs because of their addiction) have no money to maintain their habit, and hence turn to "drug-related" crime to fund their addiction.

Can you appreciate this difference ?

Please can you post some evidence which directly implicates pot (and pot alone) as a contributer to drug related crime. As mentioned above, I'd appreciate peer-reviewed articles.

Thank you

Malcolm

 

here is a quote from an article I'd like you to read......it directly mentions pot, and its lack of involvement in drug related crime (ie the "substantial problems")

"the approach has been cost-effective, reducing enforcement costs without leading to increased cannabis use. In the United States, cannabis decriminalisation similarly reduced enforcement costs, with enforcement resources generally redirected toward trafficking and other illicit drugs. There were no increases in cannabis use or substantial problems that could be ascribed to decriminalisation

from

The impact of cannabis decriminalisation in Australia and the United States Journal of Public Health Policy, Volume 21, Issue 2, 2000, Pages 157-186
Single, E; Christie, P; Ali, R

edit : mark ups

 

I have nothing more to add to this debate. I just wanted to say that malkie is doing an impressive job of debating, and that I agree with everything that he has said. I believe his argument is based on logical, scientific facts, and is very strong. His articles are from respected, reputable sources, and are not clouded by bias.

____" AT60 "____ believes malkie is better informed

 

As Chyren said it so well so often "PPOR" LL

 

Thank you very much Admiral_Thrawn60 for your kind comments. I've been active in the cannabis research field for 4 years now, and I have to constantly keep up to date on my reading as the area is always expanding.

Whenever I've published work it has been peer reviewed by at least 3 independent experts in the same field. This can be a nasty experience as the reviewers always find fault and ask you to run further experiments before accepting your article. However, the result of this is a better scientific publication which is in everyones best interests.

As a result of this process I know how to debate properly, and where to look for sources of reliable information.

I have really enjoyed adding my little knowledge to this debate, and have had fun exchanging ideas with you all.

I'd like to thank the Canadian Fanforce for bringing this subject to the forum, and for everyone who posted and gave their honest, well thought out opinions. Its been great!

I'll certainly check back and see what other discussions are on going, and feel free to pop into our newly established FanForce (check my sig).

Malcolm

 

It has been great. And yes I feel I am the most informed of all...

Actually Malkie and I are the same when it comes to pot. Here's exactly Malkie's words from a previous post.."I'm against pot legalisation, but I agree with its decriminalisation (ie people who have small quantities for medical use should not be prosecuted). "

Malkie says NO to legalization...Lady_Lucas sayd no to Legalization. There you go! We are agreed!
I think the research Malkie is doing is great and if certain componds within the marijuana plant truly have a medicinal purpose and would only be used for those that TRULY needed it over any other alternative and was prescribed ONLY by a Docter than I would be open to that. Which means I agree with Malkie on Decriminalization. There is a big difference between medical decriminalization and legalization. Thanks Malks for sharing my viewpoint!

Great discussion! Cheers!

 

sheesh, some people have to get the last word.

no, we don't share the same view point. You gave various misinformed point about why pot shouldn't be legalised. I then tore those arguements apart with scientific fact.

If anything, I'm closer to agreeing to pot legalisation as a result of the extra reading that I've done while replying to this thread. I can't see any solid reason why it should not be legalised.

if certain componds within the marijuana plant truly have a medicinal purpose and would only be used for those that TRULY needed it over any other alternative and was prescribed ONLY by a Docter than I would be open to that

well, unfortuneately it doesn't matter what you think on this subject as it already happens. See my above post about two synthetic pot drugs available on prescription.

It really is undebatable that pot has clear, well defined medicinal properties. That goes without saying.

M

 

If it is used for medicinal purposes only, and the only way to get it is through a doctor's prescription, then I think pot is a good thing.

However, if we are going to legalise pot so that anyone can smoke it for pleasure, then heck...Why not take ALL prescription drugs out from behind the counter and let everybody insert all kinds of fun stuff in their system!