the evil weed

[Bill O'Olberman]

Care to elaborate or just cut, paste and show us you're an ape?

You asked for data and he posted an article with data that shows us a case study of a country where a liberal drug policy has been rather sucessful and drug usage did not increase. Its time we seriously reevaluate our current hardline drug policy especially regarding marijuana.

Right, here's the problem though, BO, and it's a bit of a pet peeve with me. Too many monkeys simply cut/paste shit from some other source and say "there".

Here's an idea, and maybe I'm asking a bit much for the group here - but if you're going to support your argument with data and references, elaborate on why that data and/or reference supports your point.

Unless you really aren't capable of making your own point and simply substitute it for something someone else developed, which is clearly the case here.

Portugal, which in 2001 became the first European country to officially abolish all criminal penalties for personal possession of drugs, including marijuana, cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine

I disinclined to say legalize all drugs right now but it can be a gradual process. Marijuana is relatively benign drug that should be decriminalized immediately, a resource from which the government stands to make money off tax revenue, if marijuana is legalized it will reduce some of the strain placed on the judical system by trials, plea bargining, incarcerating drug users, as well as reduce the needless money spent on the War on Drugs.

At the recommendation of a national commission charged with addressing Portugal's drug problem, jail time was replaced with the offer of therapy

Fundamentaly changing how we deal with drug users is essential. Treatment is far less costly than incarceration and as a policy is much more likely to be sucessful and lead to drug users engaging in less risky activities. The article mentions that while only 5 percent of the worlds population the US is home to 25 percent of the worlds criminals. Why dont we save prisons for those who are actually a threat to society?

Compared to the European Union and the U.S., Portugal's drug use numbers are impressive. Following decriminalization, Portugal had the lowest rate of lifetime marijuana use in people over 15 in the E.U.: 10%. The most comparable figure in America is in people over 12: 39.8%. Proportionally, more Americans have used cocaine than Portuguese have used marijuana.

You asked for data, there is some.

The paper, published by Cato in April, found that in the five years after personal possession was decriminalized, illegal drug use among teens in Portugal declined and rates of new HIV infections caused by sharing of dirty needles dropped, while the number of people seeking treatment for drug addiction more than doubled.

It would seem that decriminaliztion doesnt lead to skyrocketing drug use rates among young people. And that people engaged in less risky behaviors and actually sought treatment for their problems.

The Cato paper reports that between 2001 and 2006 in Portugal, rates of lifetime use of any illegal drug among seventh through ninth graders fell from 14.1% to 10.6%; drug use in older teens also declined. Lifetime heroin use among 16-to-18-year-olds fell from 2.5% to 1.8% (although there was a slight increase in marijuana use in that age group). New HIV infections in drug users fell by 17% between 1999 and 2003, and deaths related to heroin and similar drugs were cut by more than half. In addition, the number of people on methadone and buprenorphine treatment for drug addiction rose to 14,877 from 6,040, after decriminalization, and money saved on enforcement allowed for increased funding of drug-free treatment as well.

Hard drug user started using less hard drugs and sought treatment. But there was a slight increase in marijuana use amoungst 18-18 year olds.

The Cato report's author, Greenwald, hews to the first point: that the data shows that decriminalization does not result in increased drug use. Since that is what concerns the public and policymakers most about decriminalization, he says, "that is the central concession that will transform the debate."

So really the "kids are going to uses more drugs and society is going to fall apart if drugs are decriminalized/made legal rhetoric" is based on unfounded assumptions. Mind you, this is from the Cato Insitute not some liberal think tank.

 

[Bill O'Olberman]

you smoke a doobie and i will drink a beer and lets see who can function....

Have you never smoked marijuana?

Don't pretend that marijuana doesn't impair more than a beer. Sheesh

It really doesnt. I can smoke pot and still function much better than I can if I drink.

 

[ConHog]

Have you never smoked marijuana?

Don't pretend that marijuana doesn't impair more than a beer. Sheesh

That would depend upon the amount. As a person who has had enough of both for a lifetime, I can say with complete confidence that a marijuana high is a far more functional state of mind than a comparable level of drunkenness. That and my religious beliefs are the reasons why I no longer drink. Do you have experience with both substances, or are you talking out of your ass?

I drink in moderation myself, and worked in drug enforcement for 10 years. I'd venture to say that I have seen more impaired people than most on this board.

I am pro allowing states to legalize marijuana or not. I ridicule those who make ridiculous claims that pot is not as impairing than beer. One doof earlier tried to compare an 1/8th to a six pack of beer earlier, when you and I both know that smoking an 1/8th would be like drinking a CASE of beer.

 

[Kalam]

I drink in moderation myself, and worked in drug enforcement for 10 years. I'd venture to say that I have seen more impaired people than most on this board.

Fair enough. Keep in mind that a high person probably looks more impaired to non-high people than he or she actually feels. That's been my experience, at least.

I am pro allowing states to legalize marijuana or not. I ridicule those who make ridiculous claims that pot is not as impairing than beer. One doof earlier tried to compare an 1/8th to a six pack of beer earlier, when you and I both know that smoking an 1/8th would be like drinking a CASE of beer.

Something along those lines; I'm a daily smoker and can make an eighth last a week or longer. Cannabis is physically impairing in a sense, but I've never experienced the loss of cognitive function and judgment ability that I experienced when I drank. The mental effects seem almost opposite, in fact.

 

[ConHog]

I drink in moderation myself, and worked in drug enforcement for 10 years. I'd venture to say that I have seen more impaired people than most on this board.

Fair enough. Keep in mind that a high person probably looks more impaired to non-high people than he or she actually feels. That's been my experience, at least.

I am pro allowing states to legalize marijuana or not. I ridicule those who make ridiculous claims that pot is not as impairing than beer. One doof earlier tried to compare an 1/8th to a six pack of beer earlier, when you and I both know that smoking an 1/8th would be like drinking a CASE of beer.

Something along those lines; I'm a daily smoker and can make an eighth last a week or longer. Cannabis is physically impairing in a sense, but I've never experienced the loss of cognitive function and judgment ability that I experienced when I drank. The mental effects seem almost opposite, in fact.

Oh, you were just as impaired, the major difference being that alcohol affects the fine motor skills more than marijuana, and maybe judgment skills, hard to say on that one; and another thing is that only the hard core smokers will smoke an 1/8th in one setting while it's pretty common to see people drink beer by the case. I think it's perfectly sensible to assume that once legal and the price has presumably dropped that more people will smoke larger quantities when they do smoke. Thus upping the people who are really high as opposed to those who just have a buzz., because it is true, a person could share a joint with their buddies and be perfectly unimpaired, but it's also true that a person could share a six pack with their buddies and be perfectly fine. Up that to a case and you've got a drunk, up that to an 1/8th and you've got a seriously impaired person.

 

[Sweetchuck]

And Topspin will be glad to provide all the undocumented proof he can dream up and tell you he's got more education than you or anyone else on this forum.

Topspin - you really come off as an idiot. You have shown no proof, made no argument other than churning rhetoric and promoting yourself as a smart guy. It's clear you're not that smart at all regardless of your claims.

I would like to see a good, objective debate of this issue here but sadly I'm fairly sure there will be too many Topspin's dumbing it down.

you have been spewing your anti pot BS....where are all these links from you showing us pot smoking morons how deadly it is?...otherwise you have just as much on the table as Top.....

I'm not the one arguing to legalize it, dipshit.

It's your case to make, not mine.

 

[Harry Dresden]

you smoke a doobie and i will drink a beer and lets see who can function....

Have you never smoked marijuana?

Don't pretend that marijuana doesn't impair more than a beer. Sheesh

at parties i went to the drunkards were less functional than the Ganja crowd....by far...some of the drinkers could not even walk straight.....and the pot heads were never out in the back yard puking....or getting rowdy and stupid....and never woke up with a hangover....but thats my take....ill go with the weed....

 

[Sweetchuck]

You asked for data and he posted an article with data that shows us a case study of a country where a liberal drug policy has been rather sucessful and drug usage did not increase. Its time we seriously reevaluate our current hardline drug policy especially regarding marijuana.

Right, here's the problem though, BO, and it's a bit of a pet peeve with me. Too many monkeys simply cut/paste shit from some other source and say "there".

Here's an idea, and maybe I'm asking a bit much for the group here - but if you're going to support your argument with data and references, elaborate on why that data and/or reference supports your point.

Unless you really aren't capable of making your own point and simply substitute it for something someone else developed, which is clearly the case here.

Portugal, which in 2001 became the first European country to officially abolish all criminal penalties for personal possession of drugs, including marijuana, cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine

I disinclined to say legalize all drugs right now but it can be a gradual process. Marijuana is relatively benign drug that should be decriminalized immediately, a resource from which the government stands to make money off tax revenue, if marijuana is legalized it will reduce some of the strain placed on the judical system by trials, plea bargining, incarcerating drug users, as well as reduce the needless money spent on the War on Drugs.

At the recommendation of a national commission charged with addressing Portugal's drug problem, jail time was replaced with the offer of therapy

Fundamentaly changing how we deal with drug users is essential. Treatment is far less costly than incarceration and as a policy is much more likely to be sucessful and lead to drug users engaging in less risky activities. The article mentions that while only 5 percent of the worlds population the US is home to 25 percent of the worlds criminals. Why dont we save prisons for those who are actually a threat to society?

Compared to the European Union and the U.S., Portugal's drug use numbers are impressive. Following decriminalization, Portugal had the lowest rate of lifetime marijuana use in people over 15 in the E.U.: 10%. The most comparable figure in America is in people over 12: 39.8%. Proportionally, more Americans have used cocaine than Portuguese have used marijuana.

You asked for data, there is some.

The paper, published by Cato in April, found that in the five years after personal possession was decriminalized, illegal drug use among teens in Portugal declined and rates of new HIV infections caused by sharing of dirty needles dropped, while the number of people seeking treatment for drug addiction more than doubled.

It would seem that decriminaliztion doesnt lead to skyrocketing drug use rates among young people. And that people engaged in less risky behaviors and actually sought treatment for their problems.

The Cato paper reports that between 2001 and 2006 in Portugal, rates of lifetime use of any illegal drug among seventh through ninth graders fell from 14.1% to 10.6%; drug use in older teens also declined. Lifetime heroin use among 16-to-18-year-olds fell from 2.5% to 1.8% (although there was a slight increase in marijuana use in that age group). New HIV infections in drug users fell by 17% between 1999 and 2003, and deaths related to heroin and similar drugs were cut by more than half. In addition, the number of people on methadone and buprenorphine treatment for drug addiction rose to 14,877 from 6,040, after decriminalization, and money saved on enforcement allowed for increased funding of drug-free treatment as well.

Hard drug user started using less hard drugs and sought treatment. But there was a slight increase in marijuana use amoungst 18-18 year olds.

The Cato report's author, Greenwald, hews to the first point: that the data shows that decriminalization does not result in increased drug use. Since that is what concerns the public and policymakers most about decriminalization, he says, "that is the central concession that will transform the debate."

So really the "kids are going to uses more drugs and society is going to fall apart if drugs are decriminalized/made legal rhetoric" is based on unfounded assumptions. Mind you, this is from the Cato Insitute not some liberal think tank.

Thank you BO.

This post should be stickied. This is how a point is made and supported, and a rarity here so far from what I can see.

 

[ConHog]

Have you never smoked marijuana?

Don't pretend that marijuana doesn't impair more than a beer. Sheesh

at parties i went to the drunkards were less functional than the Ganja crowd....by far...some of the drinkers could not even walk straight.....and the pot heads were never out in the back yard puking....or getting rowdy and stupid....and never woke up with a hangover....but thats my take....ill go with the weed....

Again Harry, you're comparing some guys who shared a bowl or whatever to some guys that shared a keg or whatever. It's about quantity.

 

[Harry Dresden]

And Topspin will be glad to provide all the undocumented proof he can dream up and tell you he's got more education than you or anyone else on this forum.

Topspin - you really come off as an idiot. You have shown no proof, made no argument other than churning rhetoric and promoting yourself as a smart guy. It's clear you're not that smart at all regardless of your claims.

I would like to see a good, objective debate of this issue here but sadly I'm fairly sure there will be too many Topspin's dumbing it down.

you have been spewing your anti pot BS....where are all these links from you showing us pot smoking morons how deadly it is?...otherwise you have just as much on the table as Top.....

I'm not the one arguing to legalize it, dipshit.

It's your case to make, not mine.

its MISTER DIPSHIT to you fuckface....and by putting none of your own facts on the table,after calling for someone else to put some facts out,gives you just as much credibility in this debate as Topspin....and until you do, your just another anti-pot guy who has never smoked a joint in his life but yet ....knows how evil and horrible it is....because some other anti-pot guy told you about it....

 

[Sweetchuck]

you have been spewing your anti pot BS....where are all these links from you showing us pot smoking morons how deadly it is?...otherwise you have just as much on the table as Top.....

I'm not the one arguing to legalize it, dipshit.

It's your case to make, not mine.

its MISTER DIPSHIT to you fuckface....and by putting none of your own facts on the table,after calling for someone else to put some facts out,gives you just as much credibility in this debate as Topspin....and until you do, your just another anti-pot guy who has never smoked a joint in his life but yet ....knows how evil and horrible it is....because some other anti-pot guy told you about it....

I'm not debating against it. You're arguing for it.

Maybe if you weren't such a fucking pothead, this concept might be a little clearer.

Here's my fact - you're a fucking retard pot smoker who can't produce a rational argument. Maybe you should hire a pro-pot lobbyist. Just make sure he's not a fucking pothead like you otherwise he'll immediately be written off as an idiot.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Don't pretend that marijuana doesn't impair more than a beer. Sheesh

at parties i went to the drunkards were less functional than the Ganja crowd....by far...some of the drinkers could not even walk straight.....and the pot heads were never out in the back yard puking....or getting rowdy and stupid....and never woke up with a hangover....but thats my take....ill go with the weed....

Again Harry, you're comparing some guys who shared a bowl or whatever to some guys that shared a keg or whatever. It's about quantity.

we shared more than a bowl Con....we use to smoke "oilers"....a bunch of them....and yet the drinkers were a mess.....and one of the reasons the drinkers got so wasted was because these people would start drinking a lot on an empty stomach....as far as the debate about which can you function better on.....if i HAD TO drive....i would rather be high than drunk.....as im sure most people who have been there would agree....

 

[ConHog]

at parties i went to the drunkards were less functional than the Ganja crowd....by far...some of the drinkers could not even walk straight.....and the pot heads were never out in the back yard puking....or getting rowdy and stupid....and never woke up with a hangover....but thats my take....ill go with the weed....

Again Harry, you're comparing some guys who shared a bowl or whatever to some guys that shared a keg or whatever. It's about quantity.

we shared more than a bowl Con....we use to smoke "oilers"....a bunch of them....and yet the drinkers were a mess.....and one of the reasons the drinkers got so wasted was because these people would start drinking a lot on an empty stomach....as far as the debate about which can you function better on.....if i HAD TO drive....i would rather be high than drunk.....as im sure most people who have been there would agree....

As far as driving goes, I have seen studies that go either way on if it impairs you or not.

That being said, your argument about making it legal would be MUCH stronger if you wouldn't try the very dubious "its not as bad as booze" tactic. Not only is that silly, there's no need for it. Pot does impair, but if you feel an adult should be able to impair themselves with it, fight that fight, don't try the its not as bad as.......... argument.

 

[Kalam]

Oh, you were just as impaired, the major difference being that alcohol affects the fine motor skills more than marijuana, and maybe judgment skills, hard to say on that one; and another thing is that only the hard core smokers will smoke an 1/8th in one setting while it's pretty common to see people drink beer by the case. I think it's perfectly sensible to assume that once legal and the price has presumably dropped that more people will smoke larger quantities when they do smoke. Thus upping the people who are really high as opposed to those who just have a buzz., because it is true, a person could share a joint with their buddies and be perfectly unimpaired, but it's also true that a person could share a six pack with their buddies and be perfectly fine. Up that to a case and you've got a drunk, up that to an 1/8th and you've got a seriously impaired person.

I'm not entirely sure about that. Unless you're hitting some really low-quality crap, you'll reach a point sooner or later at which you're not capable of packing another bowl. Reaching this point doesn't pose a serious threat to your health per se... unlike drinking too much. People may smoke more often but I doubt they'll smoke a significantly larger amount per sitting.

 

[MikeK]

you smoke a doobie and i will drink a beer and lets see who can function....

Have you never smoked marijuana?

Don't pretend that marijuana doesn't impair more than a beer. Sheesh

You've cited a beer but not how much marijuana. No way to respond.

 

[ConHog]

Have you never smoked marijuana?

Don't pretend that marijuana doesn't impair more than a beer. Sheesh

You've cited a beer but not how much marijuana. No way to respond.

You must have missed it, someone early in the thread, i forget who, said an 1/8th was like a six pack of beer and I countered that it was more like a case.

 

[MikeK]

Don't pretend that marijuana doesn't impair more than a beer. Sheesh

You've cited a beer but not how much marijuana. No way to respond.

You must have missed it, someone early in the thread, i forget who, said an 1/8th was like a six pack of beer and I countered that it was more like a case.

You're right. I did miss it (I jumped a page).

I think this would be a hard comparison to make because there are several variables, such as potency, strains, individual users' biochemistry and individual beer drinker's tolerance level. But presuming equal factors I think you'll agree that beer and pot cause different kinds of impairment, the most prominent being one who is stoned on pot tends to know it and his motor reflexes are subdued, while the beer drunk doesn't know it and tends to be impetuous. But the outstanding (and invariable) difference between the two is the stoner is never inclined to violence. And I regard that as a very important difference.

 

[ConHog]

You've cited a beer but not how much marijuana. No way to respond.

You must have missed it, someone early in the thread, i forget who, said an 1/8th was like a six pack of beer and I countered that it was more like a case.

You're right. I did miss it (I jumped a page).

I think this would be a hard comparison to make because there are several variables, such as potency, strains, individual users' biochemistry and individual beer drinker's tolerance level. But presuming equal factors I think you'll agree that beer and pot cause different kinds of impairment, the most prominent being one who is stoned on pot tends to know it and his motor reflexes are subdued, while the beer drunk doesn't know it and tends to be impetuous. But the outstanding (and invariable) difference between the two is the stoner is never inclined to violence. And I regard that as a very important difference.

I would maybe agree with on your last point except that many a hard core pot users tend to lace their pot with other drugs which do cause violent reactions. By the way beer doesn't usually make people violent either, whiskey now................

 

[MikeK]

I would maybe agree with on your last point except that many a hard core pot users tend to lace their pot with other drugs which do cause violent reactions.

Then you're not talking about marijuana users but something other.

By the way beer doesn't usually make people violent either, whiskey now................

You obviously never watched the payday night brawls behind the 500 Area "slop chute" (EM club) at Camp LeJeune back in the '50s (and maybe still), where they served nothing but Lucky Lager beer for a nickel a can. The UFC Cage Fights have nothing on them.

The bottom line is alcohol and other drugs, such as amphetamines, provoke violent behavior. Marijuana does not. There is no good reason to prohibit marijuana use by adults.

 

[ConHog]

I would maybe agree with on your last point except that many a hard core pot users tend to lace their pot with other drugs which do cause violent reactions.

Then you're not talking about marijuana users but something other.

By the way beer doesn't usually make people violent either, whiskey now................

You obviously never watched the payday night brawls behind the 500 Area "slop chute" (EM club) at Camp LeJeune back in the '50s (and maybe still), where they served nothing but Lucky Lager beer for a nickel a can. The UFC Cage Fights have nothing on them.

The bottom line is alcohol and other drugs, such as amphetamines, provoke violent behavior. Marijuana does not. There is no good reason to prohibit marijuana use by adults.

And as I have said. I am PRO allowing the voters of each state to vote on such, I just don't like people pretending that MJ doesn't get you high or whatever.. Come on.......