Are prohibitionists really this stupid?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Captain VXR

Rollo - the US government found zero deaths caused by cannabis between 1997 and 2005

---

I find this highly unlikely, psychosis and schizophrenia for example results in increased suicide rate. Whilst noone may have died of cannabis overdose people would have died from secondary effects. How many Americans killed in road accidents during that period were found to have cannabis in their bloodstream for example?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Captain VXR

studies have shown that cannabis users have lower rates of some cancers than the general population including lung cancer, as cannabis contains cancer fighting chemicals.

---

Cannabis does NOT reduce the risk of cancer. There is evidence that cannabis is slightly carcinogenic but more importantly people who smoke it with tobacco tend to take deeper breaths and keep the smoke in for longer in an effort to increase the effect of the drug. This increases the carcinogenic effects of tobacco.

Marijuana: use among young males and health... [Am J Mens Health. 2009] - PubMed - NCBI

This paper indicates that the risk of male specific cancers is increased in male cannabis users.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Captain VXR

And incidentally, they tend to have a lower weight.

---

As do heroin addicts as they use any available income for drugs and neglect to eat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Captain VXR

would you rather have cannabis, codeine (derived from cocaine, highly addictive, can be turned into a horrific drug called krokodil very easily which makes heroin look like paracetamol by comparison) or morphine (opiate) used as a painkiller?

---

Correction, codeine is an opiate and is related to morphine. Cocaine is unrelated to codeine and is derived from local anaesthetic and is completely different in its pharmacological effects from the opiates.

Heroin is merely synthetic morphine although its more potent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Captain VXR

there is no proof that cannabis causes psychosis and schizophrenia, the slight statistical links can be explained as undiagnosed people trying to self medicate, or cannabis accelerating the progress of people who would have developed it.

---

There is a definite link between cannabis and psychosis/schizophrenia although you are right, it may be that those who are predisposed to those conditions are more likely to be cannabis users. If this is the case do you think its right that those who are vulnerable to such problems are drawn into drug use?

Genetic vs. pharmacological inact... [Int J Neuropsychopharmacol. 2011] - PubMed - NCBI

The above paper however is interesting as it demonstrates that cannabis has a definite effect in the production of an enzyme that metabolises dopamine, disturbances of which are found in schizophrenia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Captain VXR

Even with the possible health risks, they are far less worse than alcohol and tobacco. Lung cancer, mouth cancer, limb amputations, throat cancer, cyrrhosis of the liver, alcohol poisoning, death, alcoholism etc etc

With a large black market ( I know several places to get it from, and I'm just an occasional user from Bath, not exactly the Amsterdam of England) that has survived over 40 years of the great Richard Nixon's war on drugs and the barbaric violence caused by Latin American drug cartels, prohibition has failed, and a better, safer, regulated supply chain is needed.
FYI, cannabis use rates are around 15% of the population of the USA, 6.5% of the UK and 5.5% of the Netherlands - indicating that legalization would not lead to a sustained increase in use.
Do you think I should be arrested, fined and given a criminal record for taking a bite of a hash cake, but I should be allowed to down a litre bottle of whisky?
Finally, the fatal dose of marijuana is one third of your body weight, or 69,000 joints. People have died downing one pint of perfectly legal vodka.

---

Many of your points downplaying the health risks of cannabis are wrong and smell of someone reading straight from pro-cannabis literature. However I do agree with you that there is an argument for the legalisation of cannabis and some other drugs on the basis that it denies the criminal element a source of income and the quality of drugs can be checked. Taxation levied on the drug can then be used to pay for the health consequences which happen anyway thanks to illegal drug use.

It is notable for example that when opium was legal in the UK and was in fact one of Britain's greatest export earners especially to China, there is evidence that criminality associated with the drug was quite low. Part of that was that the cost of the drug was low as it was produced in industrial amounts and the factors that make illegally obtained drugs expensive like the costs of the risks of production and transport being passed onto the consumer, and this meant people could afford to buy the drug without turning to crime.

That said one should also remember the effect British exports of opium had on China with reduced productivity and increased corruption as young men spent all their days under the influence of the drug, which is why China banned it leading to war with the UK.

They remind me of the BMA with its made up facts re smoking in cars, loonies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

The use or not of drugs (pot, cocaine, alcohol, nicotine, etc.) are just like prostitution and gambling in that they are in themselves victimless crimes. All of the "victims" are willing participants.

---

The "victims" are most likely to be the children of said users, who are then likely in turn more likely to be receiving welfare benefits later on in life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

Drunk driving, loosing your job, engaging in theft, etc. That's not the fault of the substance, it's YOUR fault for not controlling your use of those things. And that is where society does have a role to step in and mitigate that harm by addressing only those individuals harming others.

---

Society should pay more in welfare benefits after the event? Well done.

Mental Illness and Drug Addiction

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

The "victims" are most likely to be the children of said users, who are then likely in turn more likely to be receiving welfare benefits later on in life.

---

Not to mention those mugged/robbed etc by junkies who need money for their fix.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

That's a knee jerk reaction. How many alcoholics and smokers rob & mug people for their fix? Why not? Your assigned reading is paragraph two in post #10 above. C'mon guys, think it through. All the way through from beginning to end.

---

So you think that being addicted to costly drugs does not cause addicts to commit crime?

What colour is the sky in your world?

£30 for a wrap, not a massive price is it?

Drugs - Cocaine

But glad you agree addicts DO commit crime to pay for their habit, like I said they did.

H similar prices for a hit

Heroin Prices 2009 | Heroin Opiate Prices

Cocaine cheaper than lager and wine as drug price falls by half - Telegraph

Life in the capital of cut-price crack cocaine | Mail Online

Street price of drugs crashes to record low - Crime - UK - The Independent

Price doesn't seem to be the issue, it is the type of person drug addiction attracts.

Bet the majority of looters during the recent UK riots do drugs too, they are just that way inclined - law breakers see?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

Q Why are those drugs so expensive?
A Because, since those drugs are illegal, the vendors must incur substantial risk in proving them. Therefor market forces prevail and risk/reward sets the pricing.

---

So then, if we apply your proposed changes, what then happens? The Supply curve shifts downwards because prices which once could have been achieved no longer can be and we find a new lower equilibrium position. We also have an expansion in the production–possibility frontier for the product because selling it is no longer under a legal restriction. The net effect is that supply would increase even further and prices drop.

Sure you may have priced out the criminal element from society, but all you've done is create a bigger volume of production and a larger readily legal market in which to consume it.
Unlike butter, iPods, clothing or housing, the product in question has a causal link with psychosis/schizophrenia and other mental health issues. Which apparently you have decided to ignore entirely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

So then, if we apply your proposed changes, what then happens? The Supply curve shifts downwards because prices which once could have been achieved no longer can be and we find a new lower equilibrium position. We also have an expansion in the production–possibility frontier for the product because selling it is no longer under a legal restriction. The net effect is that supply would increase even further and prices drop.

Sure you may have priced out the criminal element from society, but all you've done is create a bigger volume of production and a larger readily legal market in which to consume it.
Unlike butter, iPods, clothing or housing, the product in question has a causal link with psychosis/schizophrenia and other mental health issues. Which apparently you have decided to ignore entirely.

---

The thing is, we've been here before.

Take a look at Heroin which was marketed a 100 years ago by Bayer pharma and sold direct to the public without need for prescription. It was soon realised by the public that Heroin was like opium but more powerful and there was a huge demand for the drug that was catered for entirely legally until heroin was banned in the '20s.

Was there an accompanying crime wave to feed this habit? No.

Crime related to drugs comes in two flavours. Theft and assault by addicts to raise the necessary funds to purchase drugs and crime related to competition between drug gangs. Cut the price and reduce the need for addicts to raise money through crime and legalise it and wipe out the criminal supply element.

The taxes raised from selling the drug can be used to help with the psychiatric/addictive consequences.

Right now because the whole drug trade is untaxed funding to cope with the consequences from drug addiction must be raised elsewhere from the rest of the economy which is why its such a drain.