Are prohibitionists really this stupid?

With the news that theformer head of MI5 now being in favour of marijuana legalisation comes some incredibly stupid responses from the geniuses who think people should be punished and given a criminal record for possessing a substance that will only do them harm and not others, and far less harm than alcohol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prohibitionist No.1

"I don't want the person driving the train I'm on to have just had a joint thank you very much," he said. "I am reassured by the fact that it is illegal."

---

Yes, legalising marijuana automatically means train drivers will decide to drive whilst stoned, and the only reason they don't currently do it is because it is illegal, not because of common sense. Also, train drivers are constantly wrecked on legal intoxicants such as alcohol and salvia. /sarcasm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prohibitionist No.2

"What I am concerned about is the idea that we should stop fighting it and wave the white flag to these criminal gangs and say that we walk away and give up. We need a clear message from law that says this is wrong and sends the right message to young people."

---

Its the criminal gangs that WOULD LOSE OUT FROM LEGALISATION because the trade would fall into the hands of legitimate businesses. You might say otherwise, but which is more popular, Budweiser or hillbilly special brew moonshine?
Wouldn't mandatory tobacco style health warnings on weed packets send out a message of the possible harms to young people? Rather than some random off a street corner saying 'its well healthy innit'. Annd wouldn't in depth education in schools about all popular intoxicants and stimulants so that people are aware of the risks and benefits and make an informed choice be better than simply saying 'just say no'?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Captain VXR

Yes, legalising marijuana automatically means train drivers will decide to drive whilst stoned, and the only reason they don't currently do it is because it is illegal, not because of common sense. Also, train drivers are constantly wrecked on legal intoxicants such as alcohol and salvia. /sarcasm

---

My thoughts exactly when I read those utterly moronic comments to which you refer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Captain VXR

for possessing a substance that will only do them harm and not others, and far less harm than alcohol.

---

Continued cannabis use and risk of incidence and persistence of psychotic symptoms: 10 year follow-up cohort study | BMJ
This 10 year follow-up study showed that incident cannabis use significantly increased the risk of incident psychotic experiences.
...
In addition, cannabis use was confirmed as an environmental risk factor impacting on the risk of persistence of psychotic experiences

Comparing cannabis with tobacco | BMJ
Premalignant changes have been shown in the pulmonary epithelium, and there are reports of lung, tongue, and other cancers in cannabis smokers.
Tetrahydrocannabinol has cardiovascular effects, and sudden deaths have been attributed to smoking cannabis.Myocardial infarction is 4.2 times more likely to occur within an hour of smoking cannabis.

The NHS would probably lose out more than anyone else if marijuana was legalised. The deterrent of law probably kerbs the rate of its use (I can't find a study to show this though) and left untaxed as is currently is, unlike tobacco which is legal, the residual costs on the NHS would not be subsidised by additional cannabis users.
If incident psychotic experiences were to rise with the legalisation of cannabis, then what sort of effect would that have on A&E wards in the country? I'm wondering about things like increased knife attacks and whatnot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Captain VXR

And wouldn't in depth education in schools about all popular intoxicants and stimulants so that people are aware of the risks and benefits and make an informed choice be better than simply saying 'just say no'?

---

Given rising obesity rates in a nation of people supposedly "aware of the risks and benefits" of diet and exercise, would you suggest that people generally would actually "make an informed choice" with the legalisation of cannabis?

Instead of using an emotive argument, please use a cost/benefit argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

Instead of using an emotive argument, please use a cost/benefit argument.

---

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but if the same cost/benefit arguments were applied to alcohol, would its legal status still stack up?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but if the same cost/benefit arguments were applied to alcohol, would its legal status still stack up?

---

It's an entirely worthwhile question and I'm still not sure of the answer:
http://www.ias.org.uk/resources/factsheets/tax.pdf

If taxation receipts from alcohol in 2004/5 kept pace with inflation, then in 2009 they would have reached £16.352bn. The NHS for England in 2009 had a budget of £92.5bn, so that would mean that alcohol revenues account for about 17% of the budget of the NHS.
I'll admit that the figures don't work properly but it's not a bad guesstimate.

What I really don't know is what portion of the NHS is spent "on repairing, lairy drunk people every weekend in casualty wards, all over the land." I suppose that the magic figure for cost/benefit arguments though is 17%.

Rollo - the US government found zero deaths caused by cannabis between 1997 and 2005
The cost of enforcing laws just for California ran into tens of millions of dollars and the possible taxes gained from legalization could easily match it.
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. And incidentally, they tend to have a lower weight.
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?
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.
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
I'll get links when I'm using a computer, I'm on my phone typing this.
Cannabis can also help people with autism function better in daily life.
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.

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

---

Nope. Your assertion is materially wrong.

Respiratory Effects of Marijuana and Tobacco Use in a U.S. Sample - Moore - 2004 - Journal of General Internal Medicine - Wiley Online Library
Journal of General Internal Medicine, Volume 20, Issue 1, pages 33–37, January 2005.
Marijuana smoke contains similar levels of tar as tobacco smoke and up to 50% more carcinogens. Marijuana users smoke unfiltered material, inhale the smoke more deeply, and hold the smoke longer than tobacco smokers, resulting in substantially greater tar deposits in the lungs than tobacco smokers.
Reports from clinical samples suggest that marijuana smokers exhibit a range of chronic respiratory symptoms, although it is unclear whether these symptoms are representative of marijuana smokers as a whole. In addition, marijuana users have greater utilization of outpatient medical services for respiratory and other illnesses. Moreover, the histopathologic and molecular abnormalities observed in marijuana smokers are almost identical to that observed in tobacco smokers.

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?

---

Codeine and morphine are both Class B drugs and regulated. So the answer to your question is YES. I'd rather have drugs regulated by law and administered by certified professionals; designed to fulfill specific functions and in measured dosages.

did the study make the distinction between those who smoke marijuana mixed with tobacco and those who smoke it straight?
should tobacco become a class b drug then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Captain VXR

did the study make the distinction between those who smoke marijuana mixed with tobacco and those who smoke it straight?

---

They made an effort to make the distinction.
Smoking both marijuana and tobacco was common among marijuana users (77%). This prevalence was higher than that noted in other studies of marijuana and tobacco use, which may be due to different definitions of marijuana and tobacco use across studies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Captain VXR

should tobacco become a class b drug then?

---

You tell me. Show workings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

Your premise is faulty. When will people ever realize you can not - not ever - legislate morality.

---

Why does law exist? The regulation, protection and the standards of society. You can legislate on the basis of harm minimisation, precisely because of all three of these reasons. Road rules for instance exist for precisely these reasons; nothing at all about morality, but rather, if everyone drove as they saw fit; where they liked, there would be an increase in the number of accidents.

Why did you even mention morality? No-one else did.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight

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?

---

I expect most or many of them did drugs like tobacco, alcohol and cannabis, but then again so do many people who abhor the riots.
Drug addiction can affect anyone, for example tobacco addicts come from all sections of society, from the chavs sat on a street corner to the president of the USA.
I think you and Rollo should do some reading of Professor David Nutt's blog - Popular intoxicants
The top eight countries in the world for cannabis use are places where it is illegal either totally, or for recreational use:
Cannabis use statistics - countries compared worldwide - NationMaster
Harm of various drugs to users and others:
Drugs that cause most harm: Scoring drugs | The Economist
A graph published originally in the Lancet also showing that alcohol and tobacco are more harmful than many illegal drugs
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...dence).svg.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight

£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

---

A ten bag of cannabis unsurprisingly costs £10 and generally weighs between 0.7-1.2 grams, enough for one person to become fairly intoxicated on
Compared to 12 cans of Strongbow cider for £8, or 3 for £20 in Tesco, which would if consumed in one sitting would have most people on the floor throwing up everywhere Strongbow Cider 12X440ml - Groceries - Tesco Groceries
Addicts to intoxicating drugs will commit crimes to get hold of them if they cannot afford to get hold of them without doing so.The legality of the intoxicating substance is irrelevant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

And your solution is?

Remembering that rigorous law enforcement has completely failed over and over to even slow the drug trade down.

---

Let them OD who cares?

If drugs were legalised then they'd be taxed so would cost more not less, which kinda ruins your argument doesn't it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Captain VXR

Addicts to intoxicating drugs will commit crimes to get hold of them if they cannot afford to get hold of them without doing so.The legality of the intoxicating substance is irrelevant.

---

As I already said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight

Let them OD who cares?

If drugs were legalised then they'd be taxed so would cost more not less, which kinda ruins your argument doesn't it?

---

Economies of scale and the reduction of risk factors would lower the price of drugs.
A dealer who sells 100 grams of cannabis and 50 mdma pills per week will have a higher unit cost than a shop selling 10,000 grams of cannabis and 4500 mdma pills per week, and also the risk of being caught by the Police and jailed, or having their merchandise stolen means they push up the price. Illegal drugs are easy money, people wouldn't be selling them if they could earn more working legitimately in an off licence or tobacconist, for example.
Try purchasing alcohol in a dry country like Saudi Arabia, I can guarantee it will not be cheap.
Cannabis prices are cheaper in the Netherlands than Britain, below is a menu from a dutch 'coffee' shop
http://www.coffeeshop.freeuk.com/Grph/ShopMenu.jpg
Compared to £10 for 0.7-1.2 grams of inferior quality (by comparison) cannabis you'd find in the UK

So why is legal cider more costly than illegal drugs then?

Tax of course.

But I'm not all that bothered re the relative costs, merely pointing out that drugs cause crime like I said before and legalising them would not solve that problem. Just massively increase the number of users and cost to the state to sort out the mess afterwards.

Let them kill themselves, no great loss.

legal cider is cheaper, as I demonstrated.
How about a £3 2l bottle of White Ace? Cheap enough?
Seeing as the Netherlands has a mary jane lower use rate than Britain, I would doubt that long term use would noticeably increase, and the drugs would be safer as they could be quality controlled etc

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight

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

---

Pub lager yes, but a crate of Stella cans will have a cheaper than £1 price per can
2 packs of 18 cans for £20 (56p per can), or £18.99 each (£1.06 per can)
Sainsbury's online groceries
Crap wine can be purchased for £3.20 per bottle
Sainsbury's online groceries

So as I've said, price isn't really all that relevant to any of this, booze/drugs are cheap (shame tobacco isn't but persecuting smokers is the norm in the UK these days).

Step away from the price thing it doesn't lead anywhere, druggies commit crime FACT and still would if drugs were legalised, the UK is not Amsterdam (AFAIK Holland would like to criminalise drugs use anyroad)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight

So as I've said, price isn't really all that relevant to any of this, booze/drugs are cheap (shame tobacco isn't but persecuting smokers is the norm in the UK these days).

Step away from the price thing it doesn't lead anywhere, druggies commit crime FACT and still would if drugs were legalised, the UK is not Amsterdam (AFAIK Holland would like to criminalise drugs use anyroad)

---

Alkies commit crime. Cannabis smokers like myself are far more persecuted than tobacco smokers.

Agree re Alkies, but that drug addiction is fine and dandy as it is seen to be social and besides has a very powerful lobby behind it hence why it is okay to persecute smokers but not drinkers.

Not taxed though, so every cloud and all that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

Why does law exist?

---

Because of lack of common sense! (you can interpret it as you wish ;) )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malbec

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.

---

Excatly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight

If drugs were legalised then they'd be taxed so would cost more not less, which kinda ruins your argument doesn't it?

---

Are you for real?
Do you think if Alcohol would be illegal the prices would be lower?