Legalize Cannabis
- Thread starter SaltyDawg
- Start date
Holy ****, yes. She's probably smoked 10 joints in just the last 2 days .. because we've been hitting the bourbon, poolside, with friends in town .. but yeah, everyday for her.
OK, I'll admit I was being cavalier with the numbers he threw out. I was annoyed with his "Not much of a gateway" statement directly after quoting the 23% number. It's the old "correlation doesn't mean causation" thing. But correlation doesn't NOT mean causation either, if you know what I mean.
Glancing over this Wikipedia page just now, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gateway_drug_theory, it looks like there have been studies that have come down on each side of the gateway hypothesis.
GVC
Well-Known Member
No offense Colton, but the first two studies in support of don't seem to find much (any?) of a causal link between cannabis use and future drug dependence/abuse. The third study employed rats.
This is all missing the point a little. Even if there is a gateway effect, since only a very small number of regular cannabis users abuse harder drugs, and since cannabis demand seems amazingly inelastic, legalizing cannabis could only possibly account for a tiny increase in addicts (if the US experience were similar to that of the Netherlands and Portugal). Or none at all. It seems as though the criminal law is not the best way to reduce and treat addicts as well. An ineffective yet extremely expensive policy is probably not the way to go. Nevermind that, on a much smaller scale, the US is experiencing some of the same ill effects under the War on Drugs as they did during alcohol prohibition. There isn't a single violent drug lord who wants drugs legalized.
Now I realize I'm tossing a lot of heretofore unsubstantiated (or insufficiently substantiated) claims around, but it's hard to commit to combating all the "I feel"s and "I think"s seriously.
What outcomes do we desire? What outcomes can we expect under different policy regimes? What are the costs and benefits of those policies?
Last edited:
As far as the gateway argument, I feel like I'm a good example. I started smoking weed at an early age (like 15). I've always smoked weed semi-regularly (a couple of times a week), but rarely more than that. The older I have gotten, the more I have become disinterested in marijuana. I still like smoking it, but I feel like I have more important things to do/spend my money on, so I don't really smoke it anymore except on occasion. During that time, I have only been interested in doing shrooms and LSD. I have done both of those a couple of times and enjoyed them, but I have never done them habitually or excessively. I have never developed any kind of drug dependence or addictive problem. If anything, marijuana kept me from experimenting with more dangerous and addictive drugs.
Hartsock
Banned
The real difference is that alcohol is very very dangerous and marijuana is not. Oh and marijuana is illegal.
It's less than a one in four. And that's combining all of the harder drugs together, and just using government estimates of numbers.
If the "gateway" drug proponents would use those numbers then fair enough, but the numbers they cite are "95% of heroin addicts used pot before they tried heroin." And the reason they use those numbers is simple, because 95% is a big scary number. If they said the reverse fact, that there are roughly 213K monthly heroin users and 16.7 million monthly pot smokers, therefore 1.2% of all pot smokers go on to become heroin users, I doubt it would strike the same fear into people's hearts as the opposite claim does. 1% isn't all that much. The 23% number I cited includes heroin, meth, and cocaine with cocaine making up the bulk of the number (something like 2 million of the 3-4 million, though if I did the math the number is closer to 3 which therefore reduces the gateway to about 18%...when I made the post I was going off the numbers the last time I had an argument about the gateway theory, which IMO the math proves is not there).
Last edited:
And of course it's not near that number. A far larger number of people use alcohol, because of its legal status and the fact it's more culturally accepted. But conversely I'd wager the same percentage of hard drug users who have tried pot have also tried booze, with that number probably being in the high 90%s.
If one wants to argue that drug law keeps people from using drugs, I'd agree to that to an extent, especially when it comes to a drug like pot which doesn't have significant addicting qualities to it. Though I find it interesting that people who claim they are for drug laws also say they would never try currently illicit drugs if they were illegal, so I guess they want to keep the laws for the people who aren't as disciplined/moral/righteous/etc. as they are.
Last edited:
Until better, more accurate testing becomes available there are two options:
1. Test for THC and if it is present, prosecute regardless of when the last doobie was partaken of.
2. Test for alcohol. Test for narcotics. Completely ignore pot. After all, it is harmless, right?
Until better, more accurate testing procedures are available, it is what it is. Remember, driving is a privilege, not a right. You can't obey certain guidelines, you forfeit your right to drive.
Tell you what, I hear that people who smoke pot are highly creative and imaginative and have brilliant ideas when stoned. You should get together with Nate and GVC, smoke a fat one and figure out a way to more accurately test for current THC levels. Hopefully you remember what your brilliant idea was once you sober up. VIVA TRES EINSTEINS!!
GVC
Well-Known Member
There are more options and issues to consider. Unlike most illicit substances, cannabis can be detected in the system long after its effects are felt. Some (many/most/all?) of the other substances (alcohol being the most obvious) adversely affect driving ability far more. If you cause an accident, and drugs were found to be a contributing factor, I have no problem with "punishing" the offender more than the non(detected)-user. If you can't pass a filmed sobriety test, and are found to have a potentially dangerous amount of THC in your system, there should be consequences. These people shouldn't be driving.
Beyond that, it's worth considering that cannabis and alcohol may be substitutes. I'm feeling lazy right now, but I recall reading a (mainstream) news piece within the last 6 months or so detailing how lowered rates of some class of traffic accident were being attributed to the substitution of weed for booze (as recreational drugs) in a jurisdiction that had undergone some loosening of their drug laws.
Beyond that, it's worth considering that cannabis and alcohol may be substitutes. I'm feeling lazy right now, but I recall reading a (mainstream) news piece within the last 6 months or so detailing how lowered rates of some class of traffic accident were being attributed to the substitution of weed for booze (as recreational drugs) in a jurisdiction that had undergone some loosening of their drug laws.