Legalization of Marijuana

@ kizzman
If there's no definitive way to prove anything, why is the U.S. government releasing statistics that claim otherwise?

Are they? If they were I'd say it's a misconception.

@ kizzman
I'm pretty sure medical coroners are trained to be able to discover cause of death otherwise it would never be on an autopsy report.

@ for dru's sins.
But they would only suggest a most probable cause of death. They certainly would be no more able to say "Alcohol caused this accident" than "Marijuana caused this accident."

^
But we still have no statistics saying marijuana was the most probable cause and we do have statistics that alcohol is.

No, we do have statistics indicating that marijuana was the most probable cause. That's what I posted before.

http://www.ukcia.org/research/Pharm/pharm.htm#51
"Numerous studies have shown that cannabis impairs road-driving performance and have linked cannabis use with increased incidence of road traffic accidents. In the UK, USA, Australia, New Zealand and many European countries, cannabis is the most common drug, apart from alcohol, to be detected in drivers involved in fatal accidents or stopped for impaired driving. A large proportion of such drivers have not taken alcohol or have concentrations below the legal limit. For example, in two studies from the UK Department of Transport (Everest et al, 1989; Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions, 1998), no alcohol was detected post-mortem in 70% and 80%, respectively, in road traffic accident fatalities testing positive for cannabis. In Australia (Road Safety Committee, 1995) only half of surviving drivers of vehicle collisions involving death or life-threatening injuries who tested positive for cannabis had also taken alcohol. In Norway, 56% of a sample of drug-impaired drivers negative for alcohol gave positive blood samples for THC (Gjerde & Kinn, 1991). From the USA, McBay (1986) had earlier found that 75% of a sample of drivers with cannabinoids in their blood were also intoxicated with alcohol. The World Health Organization (1997, p. 15) concluded:

'There is sufficient consistency and coherence from experimental studies and studies of cannabinoid levels among accident victims...to conclude that there is an increased risk of motor vehicle accidents among persons who drive when intoxicated with cannabis.... The risk is magnified when cannabis is combined with intoxicating doses of alcohol.'"

Here are some more recent studies that show congruent results:

http://www.bmj.com/content/331/7529/1371.full
"Results 681 drivers were positive for cannabis (cases 8.8%, controls 2.8%), including 285 with an illegal blood alcohol concentration (0.5 g/l). Positive cannabis detection was associated with increased risk of responsibility (odds ratio 3.32, 95% confidence interval 2.63 to 4.18). A significant dose effect was identified; the odds ratio increased from 2.18 (1.22 to 3.89) if 0 < Δ9tetrahydrocannabinol < 1 ng/ml to 4.72 (3.04 to 7.33) if Δ9tetrahydrocannabinol 5 ng/ml. The effect of cannabis remains significant after adjustment for different cofactors, including alcohol, with which no statistical interaction was observed. The prevalence of cannabis (2.9%) estimated for the driving population is similar to that for alcohol (2.7%). At least 2.5% (1.5% to 3.5%) of fatal crashes were estimated as being attributable to cannabis, compared with 28.6% for alcohol (26.8% to 30.5%)."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4486308.stm
"The French National Institute for Transport and Safety Research found evidence of cannabis use among 7% of drivers involved in fatal crashes."

@ kizzman
It's important to note that marijuana can stay in your system for up to 30 days so it doesn't even mean the individual testing positive smoked that day.

Which is part of the reason why it would be impractical and impossible to monitor/catch people driving under the influence of marijuana in the way we do with alcohol.

@ kizzman
And impractical/impossible to tell if their accident was caused by pot they smoked today or not caused by marijuana at all 'cause they smoked it five days ago and you don't stay high that long, believe me. (That would be awesome, though.)

In my own personal opinion, I believe marijuana should be completely legalized - not for just medicinal purposes. I've been smoking since I was 13, and since then it has made my life a lot easier. Since I was a young child I've suffered from depression, anxiety, and bi-polar disorder. Of course, I didn't start smoking almost every day as I do now until I was around 15. But marijuana has completely changed my life for the better. Tobacco is known to cause lung cancer, mouth cancer, and many other health problems yet it is legal once you are 18. Alcohol is known to cause addiction, liver problems, and of course drunks hurting others in their drunken stupor, and is legal once you are 21. Whereas marijuana is NOT an addictive substance, is much more easier on your lungs than tobacco, and is obviously known to be a medicinal remedy for many health problems, yet is illegal unless you have a medical marijuana card in some states. The only reason the American government hasn't completely decriminalized the use and possession of marijuana is because it grows wild. Anyone who researches enough and has the right equipment and enough common sense can grow a pot plant, and if they do it in their own home the government receives no taxes from the purchase of it. So if they did legalize it, people would much rather grow in their own homes than to go to dispensaries, party stores, gas stations, etc. to spend money on it. Also, the paper industry (and many others) would be greatly affected because many people would turn to hemp as a raw material. So basically, the only reason marijuana is mostly illegal is because the American government and industry (which has great power over the government) is greedy.

But that's my own personal opinion.

@ lyndsifer.
I don't believe teens should smoke pot and I think if it were legal, you should have to be 18 or 21 to purchase it.

@ of dru's being.
Why do you think that?

@ lyndsifer.
I believe that a developing brain shouldn't be overly exposed to substances and chemicals because it's more likely to screw up the development. Our brain doesn't actually stop developing until our mid-late 20s, but I believe adults have the right to put whatever they want into their body, as long as it's not, like, the stomach of a person who didn't give consent to have their organ taken.

Teenagers shouldn't do drugs because the effects are worse than they are on adults, and that does include THC. (If you type "THC and the adolescent mind" into Google, it will bring up numerous studies that support this.)

The first time I smoked I was 20 and I didn't start smoking daily until I was nearly 24, though I smoked casually for a few months before I was 24.

@ of dru's being.
I do agree with THC affecting a developing brain completely, and I'm proof. Lol. If it does become decriminalized completely, they probably will put an age on it. Most likely 21.

@ lyndsifer.
But that's also heavy use. Occasional doesn't have the same measured effect. I think if it's limited to who it's sold to, high school students with still use it, but use it less. I know of some high school kids who smoke and they're too broke to smoke as much as I do and I'm broke as crap for an adult. So if it's limited, it will still get into the hands of teens, but hopefully less so. And I still don't think it's as bad for them as alcohol or cigarettes.

@ of dru's being.
Well, even if it becomes legalized, there will still be dealers. Because chances are buying it legally will be a lot more expensive rather than a dealer. And I don't know about the high school kids you know, but the ones here always seem to find a way to always have some weed, even if its regs. Haha.

lyndsifer.:

@ of dru's being.
Well, even if it becomes legalized, there will still be dealers. Because chances are buying it legally will be a lot more expensive rather than a dealer. And I don't know about the high school kids you know, but the ones here always seem to find a way to always have some weed, even if its regs. Haha.

I doubt buying drugs legally would be more expensive than a dealer I mean, maybe. But even the 'hard' drugs are only as expensive to manufacture as paracetamol, which, here, is only like $5 a packet. The black market exists because people can inflate prices (because people are willing to pay that price, because there is no alternative) - I don't think organised crime (or petty crims) would be interested in a market that was legalised and brought very little profit for the energy/time put in, because they may as well have legitimate employment, in that case. What I'm saying is, if they could make as much money selling pot as selling potatoes, they're probably going to go find something else that's illegal and try to push that; or go find a totally legitimate business and go through the 'daily grind' that everyone else does.

@ pravda.
I think all drugs should be legal, not just marijuana to get rid of the entire black market on drugs, not just the black market on marijuana.

If there is a demand for something you make it illegal, you create the black market. Now we have to legalize it to get rid of the black market. (If we hadn't made it illegal in the first place, we wouldn't have this shit pile to clean up.)

Established black markets do not disappear based on legalization. They will continue to thrive by altering their products or by offering to new markets/restricted demographics.

I honestly can't be bothered to point out everything wrong with lyndsifer's argument because it's all been said before.

Have fun everyone, and take care.

@ kizzman
Black markets won't just magically disappear, no. But if we hadn't created them by making the product illegal in the first place, we wouldn't have to worry about cleaning that shit up, which is mainly the point I was trying to make.