Petition To Legalize Marijuana (legality, safety, bars)

[whitem3]

Anderson Cooper 360: Blog Archive - Video: FBI defends marijuana laws « - Blogs from CNN.com

3 myths about marijuana

If we wish for our laws to prevent harm, they need to be based on evidence.

By ROB KAMPIA

Last update: May 23, 2009 - 9:52 PM

Our nation is having the most intense debate about our marijuana laws in more a generation -- one that Minnesotans recently saw play out in full force as legislators and Gov. Tim Pawlenty debated medical marijuana. As one who has pushed for just such a debate, I'm delighted, but as I and other Marijuana Policy Project staffers have engaged with journalists and policymakers lately, it's become clear that this debate is being hobbled by a series of myths.

If we want marijuana laws that make sense -- that actually prevent harm rather than cause it -- we have to get these myths out of the way.

Myth No. 1: Marijuana is illegal because it's dangerous. In fact, the first national marijuana ban was passed in 1937 based on a wave of hysterical propaganda and newspaper stories that had nothing to do with marijuana's actual effects. Goaded by Federal Bureau of Narcotics chief Harry Anslinger, newspapers printed wild stories such as the San Francisco Examiner's claim that "Marihuana makes fiends of boys in thirty days -- Hashish goads users to bloodlust."

Many of these had a distinctly racist undercurrent, featuring marijuana-crazed Mexicans and African-Americans attacking innocent white girls.

We now know that, while no drug is harmless, the health risks of marijuana are relatively modest. Compared with alcohol, marijuana is less addictive, much less toxic, and overwhelmingly less likely to provoke violence. In the words of Dr. Leslie Iversen, Oxford University pharmacology professor and member of the British government's Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, "Overall, by comparison with other drugs used mainly for 'recreational' purposes, cannabis could be rated to be a relatively safe drug."

Myth No. 2: Legal marijuana would mean an explosion in marijuana use, bringing all the same social and health problems we now see with liquor and tobacco. In fact, research suggests that laws banning marijuana have little effect on use rates.

A World Health Organization survey published last year found that in the Netherlands -- where adults are allowed to possess small amounts of marijuana and purchase it from regulated businesses -- the rate of marijuana use is only half of ours. When Britain ended most marijuana possession arrests in 2004, the rate of marijuana use went down, not up. After reviewing data from U.S. states that have decriminalized marijuana, the National Research Council concluded, "there is little apparent relationship between severity of sanctions prescribed for drug use and prevalence or frequency of use."

But even if there were a modest increase in marijuana use, marijuana simply doesn't cause the severe health and social problems that these two legal drugs cause. Unlike tobacco, for example, marijuana has never been shown to cause lung cancer or emphysema.

And the main social harm from booze is violence, with alcohol well-established as a major contributor to domestic violence. Marijuana, as the journal Addictive Behaviors noted recently, decreases aggression and violence during intoxication. Consider how often we hear of violence committed "in a drunken rage." Have you ever heard of a marijuana user committing mayhem "in a stoned rage"?

Myth No. 3: We must keep marijuana illegal for adults in order to keep it away from kids. This seems obvious to most people, but efforts to cut teen cigarette smoking tell a different story.

Cigarettes are legal for adults, produced and sold by licensed, regulated businesses, and that's actually helped keep them away from kids. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 1991, 27.5 percent of U.S. high school students were current cigarette smokers. By 2007, that had dropped by over a quarter, to 20 percent, while current marijuana use jumped from 14.7 percent to 19.7 percent, a statistical tie with cigarette use.

Why the difference? In 1995, Congress passed the Synar amendment, mandating a crackdown on underage tobacco sales, and from 1997 to 2007 illegal tobacco sales to minors dropped 75 percent. Because tobacco sellers -- unlike drug dealers -- are licensed and regulated, we can set rules and make sure they're followed. We have no such control over marijuana dealers.

The present national debate on marijuana policy is long overdue. But if we're going to get it right this time, we can't let the discussion be weighed down by myths and mistaken beliefs not supported by the evidence.

Rob Kampia is executive director of the Marijuana Policy Project.

[Ninjahedge]

Originally Posted by Stone28

We spend that money to save lives.

That's the intent, but it does not do what was intended. It just makes the substance more profitable and actually COSTS lives in the end.

Now I am not supporting legalization of the more destructive and addictive drugs like Heroin or Meth, but making an easily grown substance illegal is just not smart. Alcohol required distilleries and the like and were harder to hide than a covered greenhouse and we neded up financing the Mafia with our attempt at Prohibition. Now we are doing the same with the Mexican gangs and pot.

As your DUI example has shown, REGULATION proves to be a more effective tool than prohibition.

What are these "Steps necessary to actually protect their children from it"? I'd like to know how legalizing it would protect our children from it.

If it is not profitable to sell, no pusher is going to risk selling to a minor at a playground. It will be YOUR responsibility to tell your kids, just like with smoking and alcohol, that it is wrong to use by whatever standards you hold.

Your kids may still get a hold of some, but the thing is, they do now anyway. Prohibition is not working, period. Something else needs to be tried.

It's very rare to hear marijuana is laced with anything. Drug dealers do not want to ruin a good thing for themselves. To lace marijuana costs money taking away from their bottom line.

What? It is rare to hear it is laced, but you are worried about the dangers.

If it is rarely laced, less addictive than Alcohol or Tobacco, and does not produce violent behavior, what's the problem? You worry about the danger and the only thing you can site is the diaphanous "gateway drug" appelation.

The only reasons pot is a gateway are simple:

1. It is illegal. So dealers who deal one are more likely to have another as compared to say a drug store.

2. Everyone said it is bad, illegal, evil and will harm you. Kids try it, do not feel anything bad, do not get cravings or any kind of halucinations and figure that their teachers and parents don't know jack.

Don't know jack = other warnings useless.

Other Warnings Useless => I will just try this once (heroin). What harm could it do?


Stone man, your arguments are not grounded in anything. You have provided no links, no relavent stats, no actual tie-ins to your argument. You have only recited fear and propaganda that have no actual basis and offer other arguments that do not really support your position (DUI arrests).

you are allowed to believe whatever you want, just know that the system we are using right now does not work, and for a substance as innocuous as pot, it just is not worth the money we are spending on it. I would ratehr track down Heroin/crack/meth/PCP production/dealers than a bunch of pot-heads whose worst crimes against humanity would be Doritoes Cool Ranch, Taco Bell drive-thru and Late Night Television.

[CaptainNJ]

Originally Posted by Ninjahedge

Now I am not supporting legalization of the more destructive and addictive drugs like Heroin or Meth,

why not? legalize everything (but do not spend my tax dollars on healthcare for addicts). of course, that wont happen. ill be paying for rehab, injuried, car accidents, etc. etc. etc. they will cost me tons.

but if i dont have to pay, what do i care if all the idiots are "addicted" to drugs.

[Ninjahedge]

Originally Posted by CaptainNJ

why not?

Because they can hurt other people as well.

Meth and PCP can cause a person to harm others, and Heroin addiction is both destructive AND overpowering (motivating crime/theft for lack of cash). Crack showed similar problems, with people robbing to get the money to pay for it.

Some substances produce more harm, even in others, when present than others.

legalize everything (but do not spend my tax dollars on healthcare for addicts).

Again, that is difficult. I would rather rehab someone than deal with them getting AIDS and being the one LUCKY person to allow it to mutate enough to gain an extra protien coat (and become more transmissable due to being less susceptable to open air).

Although it is a difficult thing to do, I would rather have a healthy addict, than a bunch of them spreading disease on street corners (70's NYC)

of course, that wont happen. ill be paying for rehab, injuried, car accidents, etc. etc. etc. they will cost me tons.

Come up with some actual numbers. You are spouting bull right now with no proof. You seem to think that UHC is something that will cost you so much that you will not be able to live.Health care in the US stinks right now. We have more "cures" for insomnia and depression and money spent on their research than we do for just about anything else.

UHC is not a simple "pay for everything" plan, but the system we have now does not work. Insurance companies should not be making money off of peoples well being (or lack thereof).

but if i dont have to pay, what do i care if all the idiots are "addicted" to drugs.

Because you will have to pay one way or another.

And you are going off on tangent.

[CaptainNJ]

Originally Posted by Ninjahedge

Come up with some actual numbers. You are spouting bull right now with no proof. You seem to think that UHC is something that will cost you so much that you will not be able to live.Health care in the US stinks right now. We have more "cures" for insomnia and depression and money spent on their research than we do for just about anything else.

And you are going off on tangent.

numbers for what? all the addicted low lifes that we pay to provide with healthcare? thats what hospitals are filled with. im sure i can get numbers, im surprised you question that notion.

i have healthcare coverage through my employer. its fine. its part of my compensation for working. people want healthcare, they should earn it.

i like tangents. i like people having the right to choose what they put in their bodies. plus, the more addicts, the more valuable someone like me is.

[sholden]

Originally Posted by Ninjahedge

Because they can hurt other people as well.

Meth and PCP can cause a person to harm others, and Heroin addiction is both destructive AND overpowering (motivating crime/theft for lack of cash). Crack showed similar problems, with people robbing to get the money to pay for it.

Meth and PCP are both nasty drugs that are only used because they are cheap and easy to make. Once you move to legal distribution of pharmaceutical level products those benefits disappear and no one will want either of them (other than current addicts). I don't think anyone wants PCP to start with, it's usually sold by black market dealers claiming it is something else...

Alcohol can cause a person to harm others, but there it is legally sold to people.

Due to heroin and crack being black market goods they are far more expensive than they would be in a legal market - so there would be less theft and robbery to support habits. And of course those things are illegal in themselves anyway.

[johnfrisco]

Pure Heroin or pure Cocaine do not cause problems. They have been used recreationally throughout time without problems. It's only when they became banned that all of the problems popped up.

The problem today is you cannot get pure Heroin or Cocaine in this country.

[pfwnj]

I wouldn't say that they have been used throughout time without problems. See Opium Wars - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia for one example of "problems". Any nation that allowed opiate use to grow to significant levels typically ran into social issues revolving around the drug, and then had to take steps to root it out. Cocaine is relatively new (in isolated form) and so doesn't have a very long history to judge by, but thus far refined cocaine has proven to be quite damaging due to its addictiveness.

That said, I think the dangers of cocaine and heroin are made perfectly clear through typical education campaigns and most people avoid them. I wouldn't go so far as CaptainNJ in saying that we should just leave addicts out in the street (this is a great way to guarantee the creation of a violent criminal underclass), but it's an open question in my mind if prohibition is worthwhile. Certainly it is justified in terms of the damaging potential of the drugs socially, but the effectiveness of illegality versus education is hard to measure.

I think the conflation of legalizing marijuana and legalizing virtually any other drug is unfortunate, incorrect and often intentionally misleading. Marijuana, in every way, is in a different class than every other illegal drug. It is not toxic, not strongly addictive and its use is so ubiquitous that the laws surrounding it are absurd at face value. No other illegal drug can claim such status, and trying to mix in cocaine legalization with marijuana legalization just muddies the waters.

[Stone28]

Originally Posted by Ninjahedge

Stone man, your arguments are not grounded in anything. You have provided no links, no relavent stats, no actual tie-ins to your argument. You have only recited fear and propaganda that have no actual basis and offer other arguments that do not really support your position (DUI arrests).

It's a fact that marijuana use cause's the user to lose concentration, coordination and a delay in reaction time. That increases the risk of accidents.

It's a fact that the Dutch marijuana policy has caused consumption in 18 to 20 year olds there to almost triple from 15% to 44%. This statistic should end this debate but I'm sure you guys will put a good spin on it. And of corse I'm looking forward to it.....

People in that age range are for the most part very inexperienced driver's. Do we really want more of them driving under the influence and putting us all at risk?

According to statistics there has been a decrese in kids smoking marijuana in recent years. Why jeopardize our children??

I keep reading that "pot is everywhere and the laws are silly". Try telling that to the cop as he's handcuffing you.....






The DEA Position On Marijuana

[JackedInPrinceton]

Originally Posted by Stone28

It's a fact that marijuana use cause's the user to lose concentration, coordination and a delay in reaction time. That increases the risk of accidents.

It's a fact that the Dutch marijuana policy has caused consumption in 18 to 20 year olds there to almost triple from 15% to 44%. This statistic should end this debate but I'm sure you guys will put a good spin on it. And of corse I'm looking forward to it.....

People in that age range are for the most part very inexperienced driver's. Do we really want more of them driving under the influence and putting us all at risk?

According to statistics there has been a decrese in kids smoking marijuana in recent years. Why jeopardize our children??

I keep reading that "pot is everywhere and the laws are silly". Try telling that to the cop as he's handcuffing you.....






The DEA Position On Marijuana

Alchohol also causes you to lose your concentration... among with a bunch of other terrible side effects. If marijuana was legal you would have to be 21 to legally consume it anyway. Besides, 80% of people my age I know smoke marijuana at least occasionally. So, they smoke now anyway- it being illegal isn't stopping them, they can get weed at the snap of their fingers.