Should cannabis be illegal?

[Lemon Jelly]

We all know that tobacco and alcohol is legal yet they are two of the most addictive and dangerous drugs we have, but cannabis is 100% illegal! Cannabis isn't addictive like tobacco and alcohol and there has only been 1 recorded death by "cannabis toxicity" which was in the UK some years ago and it was said that "This type of death is extremely rare".

So why should cannabis be illegal when we already have two mega dangerous drugs available to us 24hrs a day 365 days of the year?

Ok there are side effects but there doesn't have to be any major ones if you take it responsibly and do not over use it. So is cannabis really bad enough to ban it?

[Niki L]

I believe cannabis itself may not be any worse a drug as alcohol or tobacco. However, we should always remember that there exists the danger that people first try cannabis in a party and if they liked the heavenly feelings the cannabis gave them, many times they want to try also some different drugs, like heroin, cocaine, LSD and amfetamine. And that's when the problems start.

It's very usual that people move from the use of light drugs to the heavy ones. So, in conclusion, cannabis does have a significant tendency to indirectly lead the people for example to the use of heroin, that is one of the greatest killers among the drugs. Overdose of heroine into the veins and HIV/AIDS via dirty needles in the streets of big cities kill thousands of people a year in the United States.

The teenagers aren't aware how dangerous the use of drugs is. They might have some information about the bad effects of the drugs at school, but many times it's much more important for a teenager to be a part of a group of friends that gather on Friday nights to listen to music, dance, party all night long and when some of the members of the gang has got some beer, tobacco and drugs, you don't want to say no, because then the friends would laugh at you, tell you what a coward you are and if you still say no, they don't want to be your friends anymore.

It's really sad that social pressure has such an influence on our decisions. Numerous young people are ready to take the risk to die for to be accepted among the friends. They are ready to jump to the train without the slightest idea what the destination is. In my opinion, it would be a serious mistake, I mean a real bad move, to legalize the use of cannabis (hasis, marihuana) as an intoxicant.

[Mike_115]

Niki L Wrote:However, we should always remember that there exists the danger that people first try cannabis in a party and if they liked the heavenly feelings the cannabis gave them, many times they want to try also some different drugs, like heroin, cocaine, LSD and amfetamine. And that's when the problems start.

Wow. Just wow. Pot is not a gateway drug. As with anything too much is a bad thing. Some of the smartest, and some of the stupidest people I know smoke pot. In some cases it could lead to other drug use, but that's entirely coincidental, those people would be using drugs anyway. LSD isn't addictive, and the only danger from it is if you already are predisposed to mental illness it could trigger that. It's not the governments job to regulate what adults do to themselves. No drug should be illegal. Even Heroin, bad as it is, it is up to the individual to decide what they do to themselves.

Even if Pot prompted other drug use, why doesn't alcohol or cigarettes? Maybe we should outlaw those also because some people would like that feeling and go searching for more powerful means of getting it.

Aside from people that get addicted / don't use moderation, most of the drug problems come from making them illegal. Look at prohibition, during that time alcohol sales could become as violent as cocaine deals can now. When is the last time you heard of anyone getting shot when a beer sale went bad?

[sunken]

First of all, I do think that marijuana has medicinal purposes and I think it should be a prescription medication, just as heroine and other mind-altering substances are. There is no reason why sufferers of cancer and other diseases should not be able to benefit from what cannibas can offer in the way of pain management.

I don't believe though in full legalization of all drugs for everyone. The fact that they are illegal does keep a certain amount of the population from getting involved in some drugs that are highly addictive and destructive to the body at the same time. Without proper health monitoring (both physical and mental), these drugs not only can destroy the person taking them (as well as people he or she cares about), but can create violent acts that hurt others. Not to mention the crimes to obtain the money for their addictions and the dealers who use violence to curb their competition.

In a perfect world, the legalization of drugs would never be abused or lead to violence, but we don't live in that perfect world.

[Taopoet]

At the heart of this question is whether pot is the same class of intoxicant as other drugs. We tend to treat it as though it's just as bad for you physically, socially, and mentally as methamphetimine, cocaine, and heroin, and it just isn't.

If pot is any kind of a gateway drug, it's probably because teenagers look at the whole host of illegal drugs out there and try pot because it's easy to get and fairly low-key. Then maybe they say, "Hey, that was fun, and not a big deal, and it's just as illegal as these other drugs, so I'll bet they're not a big deal, either." Then suddenly, you have a bunch of teenagers at an amusement park filled with a range of dangerous rides any one of which could ruin their lives, but none less than pot.

If pot were legal for adults (choose your age: 18? 21?), it would be clearly in the class where it belongs: with alcohol and tobacco, which are both legal drugs that have their harmfulness, but are also easy to get, fairly low-key, and do much more both short- and long-term damage than our gentle old friend cannabis.

[Niki L]

Mike_115 Wrote:It's not the governments job to regulate what adults do to themselves. No drug should be illegal. Even Heroin, bad as it is, it is up to the individual to decide what they do to themselves.

Don't you think the legalization of heroin and other drugs was a sign to young people that it's entirely safe to use them? Do you honestly think it was a good idea to give the drug dealers totally free hands to offer their poisonous, deathly, goddamn stuff to children and teenagers? Wouldn't that be like giving your hand to the devil?

I firmly oppose the legalization of drugs and yes, I would like to see the day when everybody realized how bad the smoking of tobacco and drinking of alcohol is for your health. The people that defend the legalization of drugs don't see the effects of this kind of change in a law from a wide perspective. They don't understand that this is not about the freedom of choice. This issue is not comparable with the right to vote or have an universal health care and education. This is an issue of a healthy and safe society where decisions are made after a serious consideration and thorough research. Thank God, most of the policy-makers have come to the same conclusion as I, that intoxicants are bad for you, that they only make people ill, even kill people and increase violence and other criminal activities and that's why they should never be legalized.

Of course, there is also the other side of the coin. Some drugs, classified as narcotics, are commonly used as an important part of a treatment process. Morphine for example is a great pain reliever, just like heroin that's synthetized from morphine. There are many other narcotics besides these two that are used as legal, remedial drugs.

There is nothing wrong with the use of narcotic drugs to make patients feel better or keep the symptoms of their serious diseases away. What I'm trying to say is, that all efficient drugs are welcome and needed in medicine because originally they are created for medicinal purposes. They aren't invented for that some drug dealers could get rich and cause the deaths and misery of thousands of people.

[Mike_115]

Niki, your entire position on this issue is emotionally based. If we are deciding policy for the entire nation, we should use logic. I'm not attacking emotion, it is as important as logic, but they have their own distinct functions.

Let's begin. First off I said that what adults do to themselves is their own responsibility. What kids do is the responsibility of their parents. However, even alcohol and cigarettes aren't sold to children, so why do you think I would advocate selling heroin to them?

Everything has a trade off. Chocolate can make you fat, obesity leads to health problems. But we don't outlaw chocolate and McDonald's. Most people are aware of that, and can judge what trade offs are worth it to them. I don't think the trade off is worth it in the case of cigarettes, but it is in the case of alcohol. You are entirely free to make your own decision, and I won't try to make you drink, stop smoking, or stop eating chocolate.

You say we shouldn't allow drug dealers to "offer their poisonous, deathly, goddamn stuff to children and teenagers? Wouldn't that be like giving your hand to the devil?" Drug dealers only exist in a black market. Legalization ends that black market. During prohibition drug dealers also sold alcohol, and the alcohol trade encompassed all the evils that we see today in the drug trade. With the repeal of prohibition, all that went away.

You also say:

Niki L Wrote:I would like to see the day when everybody realized how bad the smoking of tobacco and drinking of alcohol is for your health.

There is a huge difference between realizing the health consequences of an action and making it illegal. I don't know many smokers that deny smoking can cause cancer. Nor drinkers that don't realize the negative impact on your liver, and weight. This goes back to the trade off I was talking about before, is the negative worth the positive to you?

Sadly, most politicians think that they can and should regulate personal choices, and we are starting to see laws that do criminalize McDonald's.

[Niki L]

Thank you Mike for your answer. I appreciate it. I understand your logic in this issue and I must admit that it all somehow makes sense what you say. I' m just not as sure as you that the legalization of narcotic drugs ended the black trade of drugs. I'm definitely not the only one who has some certain doubts and fears of the results and effects on our society, every time, when talking about the legalization of drugs. Of course, if we ended up in a conclusion that the legalization of drugs helped to decrease the black trade, it would probably be a good idea to give it a try and setup a trial period (3 months) for the free and legal trade of all drugs. And I think, this is the most important issue to discuss, research and consider if we want to make all the drugs legal.

You are probably smiling right now and thinking: "The man is clearly doing an about-turn in this issue." Yes, maybe I am. I realize now that this issue needs a closer research. I also realize that even though the drugs were legalized, the law makers should write into the law some tight regulations that limited the trade of drugs a little bit. It would be necessary for everyone's sake to write into the law that no narcotics should be sold or given, without a prescription from a doctor, to a child under 18 years old. All kind of selling or offering of drugs in the streets should stay illegal. The police would keep on patrolling the streets and arresting the drug dealers.

It would be also necessary to setup some maximum amount of narcotic drugs one person could buy in a week in the drug stores. The drug stores and doctors should continue to take the main responsibility of the strict rules and book keeping (how many pills has been sold for some certain customer) and be careful not to sell too many pharmaceutical preparations in a time to one person. It would be essential to have that kind of system that all the narcotics continued to be prescription-only medicines that the people in need or lust for narcotics had to visit a doctor and tell him/her why they wanted or needed to have a prescription for some narcotic medicine.

I think it was also wise to restrict the number of different narcotic prescriptions that the doctor could order to one person if the narcotics weren't needed to cure some disease or illness or ease the symptoms and physiologically harmful effects of the disease or illness. In my opinion, a person with no need to cure his/her disease or illness should not be allowed to have more than one prescription for one narcotic medicine after a thorough discussion with a doctor. The doctor could then decide if the person who liked to have the prescription seemed to be in a good enough condition both mentally and physically to understand the laws that restrict the using, selling and offering of any drugs (particularly narcotics).

[Mike_115]

I don't envision that strict of controls being necessary, but it may be. It would cut down on over doses if doctors prescribed the drug based on body type and everything instead of you just buying it from a dealer and dosing yourself. I think it could probably just be sold in liqueur stores, except for the very worst drugs. I think that drug use might go up some, but I don't think it would make much difference, and we would save a lot in enforcement, and crime.

[Niki L]

Yes, Mike, the legalization of drugs would probably decrease crime, the number of overdoses and the HIV/AIDS infections via dirty needles. It would help us to be more open about this issue and have a much better control over the drug users. I think the amounts prescribed should be kept in minimum and offer the drug users always an opportunity to get drug rehabilitation to their withdrawal symptoms and get also psychological help if they wanted to get rid of their unhealthy habit and stop using drugs.

We should continue to tell especially children and teenagers, but also adults about the dangers of narcotics: what kind of physiological effects they have on your body and mind, that they can kill you if you take an overdose of them, that they are extremely dangerous, most of them addictive and they destroy your brain cells, change your nature, have real bad withdrawal symptoms if you decide to stop using them or if you don't happen to have any of the drug left.

We should convince our children that narcotics are only good medicines for some illnesses and diseases, but there is no need or sense to use them as non-medicine intoxicants. We should keep telling our children also about the dangers of tobacco and alcohol. In my opinion they are almost as dangerous as narcotics, but the only great difference is that the use of tobacco and alcohol is generally accepted (= legal).

However, small amounts of tobacco and alcohol don't have as dramatic effects in our body and mind as the narcotics have. But we all know the longtime effects of tobacco (lung cancer, continuous carbonmonoxide poisoning, high blood pressure,...) and alcohol (cirrhosis of liver, the destruction of brain cells, worsening of the symptoms of diabetes, increasing the possibility to be stricken with epilepsy or get arrhythmias).

The point of my pondering is that even though we couldn't convince all the people that the disadvantages of the use of narcotics are much bigger than the advantages, we can at least do our best to offer people as much information as we have about the consequences of the use of narcotic drugs. That way we can ensure that no one hasn't got a wrong impression or beliefs about narcotics and that most of the people decided to say no to narcotic drugs if someone else than a legalized doctor recommended those for them as a part of medical treatments.