GameBanshee Forums

Fenix wrote:How is it a disease?? It's like calling an obesity a disease (I know it is called a disease, but wtf??)
A disease is not caused by cravings.

Wikipedia ftw!! Plus, I know of people who have ended up in Graylands (a mental institute in Perth) after long periods of them abusing marijuana. Plus, doctors advice and research.
Plus I didn't say that marijuana is definately a lot worse than cigerattes. I am not in favour of one more than the other. If I had my way, cigerattes would be illegal too.

As for it being addictive, I said that for a *few* people, heavy doses after long periods of time can result in some addiction. Again, wikipedia ftw.

I didn't say all people, but people *do* move onto more serious stuff from and because of weed, hence why weed is bad.

If they try it by being 'forced' to by friends or family, then what's the problem? You're not going to suffer its long term effects from two uses, and it's not addictive, so after being 'forced' to try it a couple of times, you'r not going to be dependent on it.

The case for legalisation is difficult, but the case against is worse

SHOULD the ultimate goal be to put drugs on a par with tobacco and alcohol? That would mean legalising both possession and trade (one makes no sense without the other), setting restrictions on access that reflect a drug's relative danger, and insisting on quality controls. Many people understandably recoil at such a prospect. There is little doubt that legalising drugs would increase the number of people who took them, whatever restrictions were applied; and it would raise difficult issues about who should distribute them, and how.

The number of drug users would rise for three reasons. First, the price of legalised drugs would almost certainly be lower—probably much lower—than the present price of illegal ones. This is because prohibition raises the price by far more than any conceivable government impost might do. If cocaine, say, were legal, estimates Mark Kleiman, a drug-policy expert at the University of California in Los Angeles, the price would be about a 20th of its current street level. As for legal cannabis, he thinks, it would cost about as much as tea. Surely no government would impose a tax large enough to replace that imposed by enforcement. Indeed, if it did, legalisation might backfire: smuggling and so crime would continue.

Second, access to legalised drugs would be easier and quality assured. Even if the stuff were sold in the sort of disapproving way that the Norwegians sell alcohol, more people would know how to buy it and would be less scared to experiment. And third, the social stigma against the use of drugs—which the law today helps to reinforce—would diminish. Many more people might try drugs if they did not fear imprisonment or scandal.

A fourth force might be that of commercialisation. “Imagine Philip Morris and the Miller Brewery with marijuana to play with,” says Mr Kleiman. In no time at all, the market would be backed by political contributions, just as those for tobacco and alcohol have been for so long. And, judging by the way state lotteries offer games designed to create compulsive gambling, state distribution might well act as a positive encouragement to consumption.

So more people would dabble in drugs, including many more young people. “Anything available to adults will be available to children,” says Mr Kleiman. In America, where—to the astonishment of Europeans—nobody under 21 is allowed to buy drink, plenty of youngsters have fake identity cards. Some 87% of American high-school seniors have sampled alcohol, but only 45% have tried cannabis. So the potential market is large. Drugs might become as widely used as alcohol—and alcohol abuse might also rise. Work by Rosalie Pacula of RAND, a think-tank in California, shows that young people tend to see the two as complements, not substitutes.

Legalisation, argue Mr Reuter and his co-author, Robert MacCoun, would result in “a clear redistribution of harms”. Poor people would on balance be better off, even if many more of them used drugs, if they were no longer repeatedly imprisoned for doing so. But there would be a greater risk “that nice middle-class people will have a drug problem in their family”.

True, it is difficult to prove from past episodes of drug liberalisation that such consequences would indeed occur. Crucially, it is hard to measure the responsiveness of drug demand to changes in price. But the evidence for cocaine and heroin suggests that demand may be at least as responsive as that for cigarettes. The same may be true for other drugs.

In fact, nobody knows quite what drives the demand for drugs. Fashions come and go. Some societies seem to resist drugs even though they are widely available (the Dutch have moderate rates of marijuana use by European standards); in others, such as Britain's, use is high despite tough laws. As with other social trends—crime, unmarried motherhood, religious observance—countries seem to be heading in roughly the same direction, but with varying degrees of enthusiasm.

The best answer is to move slowly but firmly to dismantle the edifice of enforcement. Start with the possession and sale of cannabis and amphetamines, and experiment with different strategies. Some countries might want the state to handle distribution, as it does with alcohol in Scandinavia. Others might want the task left to the private sector, with tough bans on advertising, and with full legal liability for any consequent health risks. If countries act together, it should be possible to minimise drug tourism and smuggling.

Move on to hard drugs, sold through licensed outlets. These might be pharmacies or, suggests Ethan Nadelmann, director of the Lindesmith Centre, mail-order distributors. That, after all, is how a growing number of people in America acquire prescription drugs, including some that are not licensed for use in their country. Individual states could decide whether to continue to prohibit public sale. Removing the ban on possession would make it easier to regulate drug quality, to treat the health effects of overuse, and to punish drug-users only if they commit crimes against people or property.

The result would indeed be more users and more addicts, though how many is unknowable. But governments allow their citizens the freedom to do many potentially self-destructive things: to go bungee-jumping, to ride motorcycles, to own guns, to drink alcohol and to smoke cigarettes. Some of these are far more dangerous than drug-taking. John Stuart Mill was right. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign. Trade in drugs may be immoral or irresponsible, but it should no longer be illegal.

The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil in case he do otherwise. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.

Magrus wrote:Well, look here for alcoholism facts then.
http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/homework/a/blwhatis1.htm

Alcoholism has little to do with what kind of alcohol one drinks, how long one has been drinking, or even exactly how much alcohol one consumes. But it has a great deal to do with a person's uncontrollable need for alcohol.

Magrus wrote:I know of people who have ended up in mental institutions for lots of reasons. Key words there "abusing marijuana". Abusing anything is bad for you. If you drink too much water it will make you sick. If you consume too much vitamin C you will get sick. That's a ridiculous argument.

Magrus wrote:As far as your link there, did you read it? I don't think you did. The section it pointed me when I clicked your link says essentially this:

"Although use may become habitual, the extent of physical dependence to cannabis is unknown (DEA, 2004). Many animal and human studies conducted since the 1970s have revealed cannabis withdrawal symptoms in some people after abstinence from heavy use which is usually characterized by a period of anxiousness, sleeplessness, more vivid and memorable dreams, (REM rebound), irritability, and diminished appetite after cessation of use. Because cannabis is a psychedelic drug, unlike typical depressant or stimulant drugs, these persistent effects are typically not as severe as those normally associated with physical dependence.

THC molecules break down quickly after ingestion, although some components can be detected for a period of up to a month after use, and up to 6 weeks or more in heavy users. Although these components are not proven to have any ongoing physical or mental effects in themselves— THC undergoes exponential decay, working its way out of the body slowly over many days, thus reducing the potential to cause withdrawal symptoms. [4]"

Magrus wrote:Below that, the correlation between marijuana use and mental illness was only hypothesis based.

"On the other hand, many people with pronounced psychological disorders, especially schizophrenia and depression, often self-medicate their illness with cannabis in place of potent main-stream drugs like antipsychotics, due to cannabis's relatively low side effects and calming physiological effects that alleviate symptoms."

Magrus wrote:If you'd like me to dig for the side effects of anti-psychotics and the as-of-now being researched side effects for marijuana, I'll do so when I have time. I assure you, marijuana is much better for you than the majority of anti-psychotics on the market. Which, in case you didn't know, are forced on mental patients by doctors, and cause serious, permanent, sometimes crippling side effects.

Magrus wrote:*nods* People can become addicted to anything. You know what? I know tons of people who start off on other drugs and never touch marijuana. How about that? There's people who do coke, pcp, meth, heroin and crack, all without the influence of anything else BUT that. Let's not stop there though, I went to school with a number of kids who played football and abused steroids. So, following your logic, football causes illegal drug addiction.

Well - multiple attempted suicides in this country usually means the person will get some psycology help. So they'd not criminalized, but they are under help.

Fatty food? No, but they don't break the law either by eating fat food. However, in this country there is debate on added taxtion on (very) unhealthy foods, because it is becomming a national health issue, as I expect it is in a number of "developed" worlds.

I have no idea what you mean with barebacking, the only thing I can find in my dictonary is riding without a saddle. Where this comes into the debate I don't know.

We limit smoking because it is unhealthy to "you" as well to others. But the first concern is to others. As I said in my former post, the restriction is adding up, and doing so fast. Wait 10-20 years seeing where the legislation is taking tobacco, before using that as a "this is legal, so this should be legal" arguments.

We also criminalize DUI because it is dangerous to you - but more importantly. It is against the law.

Mariuhanna usage is currently agaisnt the law in many countries, and users are willingly breaking the law. Using that as an argument for legalization is a slim to non-exsiting logical argument in my view, but an emotional one.
People breaking the law and perhaps suffering for it, should never be the reason for any law to be revoked. Never.
The only thing that will ever sway the general population is concrete reliable information.

As I said ealier it is a matter of perspective.
Medical studies are given/performed, which covers illeffects of marihuanna and concludes it is harmfull as well as some which counter them. Which to belive is a matter of perspective.
Personally, I think the jury is still out, and until something conclusive is actually formable other then "this says this and smoking is also bad so ...." then I'll say I see no reason or even argument whatsoever for it should be legal, other then possible medical usage.
As I said - just because something else is bad for you and legal, doesn't mean all things bad for you should also be legal. It is not an argument, it is simply schoolboy fighting "he did it first..."
Afterall - at one point smoking tobacco was even thought to be healthy, and granted we know much more today but when contradicting studies/conclusions are shown, I'll reserve judgement and until then follow the laws of a democratic society.

Lestat wrote:Wouldn't it be nice if the same approach would be taken with drugs? But now, because of their illegality, there is a threshold for those wanting help. As I said: substance abuse should be treated, not punished.
<snip>

That is regulation, I said nowhere that there shouldn't be any regulation (the state can do this IMO in the view that there are extra costs for the health care system & social insurance and such). Do you get put in prison after a suicide attempt? Do you have to appear before a judge. Do you get a criminal record.

Sorry for not explaining this slang term. Barebacking is the practice of willingly having sex with a partner who is HIV infected. Since the advent of fairly effective anti-HIV/AIDS it's a practice amongst a very small fringe of the male gay community, looking for risk kicks.

Smoking is only limited or forbidden in places where it could potentially have an effect on others. A smoker can still smoke as much as he want. You will not get arrested for having a cigarette on you.

Against the law = criminal. This is no reasoning. "We criminalize because it's against the law" it's like saying "We stuff food in our mouth because we eat". And you could possibly add that public drunkenness is also punished, but this can be considered to avoid problems for others. But anyone can drink as much as he wants if he avoids to go out afterwards. You will not get arrested for the possession of a bottle of beer.

Neither do you get arrested for possessing such potentially harmful or addictive substances as fatty food, tranquilisers or sleeping pills.

I'm not saying the law should be repealed because people are suffering
Your argument comes down to it's illegal so it shouldn't be legalised.
<snip>

I'm asking why should it be illegal in the first place. I apply a broad principle: only behaviour that is potentially harmful to others should be criminalised and against the law. And I find that the only exception that exists is illegal drugs (and seat belt wearing & helmet wearing, agreed). There is no consistent logical reason why a small number of substances should be targeted this way and make criminals out of people who do no harm to others.

You make it seem that tobacco & alcohol are exception, but it is illegality of drugs as marijuana cocaine & heroin that is the aberration in our current legal systems. A host of potentially harmful activities & substances are legal except for these few substances.

And of course in the mean time I follow the law. That doesn't mean I can't advocate a change of the law.