Are prohibitionists really this stupid?

[Captain VXR]

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.

"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

"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'?

[BDunnell]

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.

[Rollo]

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.

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.

[BDunnell]

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?

[Rollo]

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%.

[Captain VXR]

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.

[Rollo]

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.

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.

[Captain VXR]

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?

[Rollo]

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.

should tobacco become a class b drug then?

You tell me. Show workings.

[Rollo]

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.