Why is Marijuana Illegal?

[Michaelangelica]

Oz isn't in any continent.

It does have some of the sacred-lotus-eating properties of the famous film of Dorththy's lurid trip, however.

 

Is Cannabis Canada's major export crop to the USA?

 

Boerseun

Turns out later that it was a good thing, because whether you agree with it or not, there is a very good argument to be made that marijuana acts as a "gateway" drug, seemingly innocent, but opening the door to ever-more addictive and ever-more harmful and dangerous drugs.

Is there a good argument?

Do you want to make it?

It is certainly not the consensus opinion of Health Authorities in Oz.

[Boerseun]

Is there a good argument?

Do you want to make it?

It is certainly not the consensus opinion of Health Authorities in Oz.

Yes - I believe there is a very good argument in support of the gateway hypothesis.

 

In South Africa, MJ is illegal. But, with the police being swamped by more serious matters, they basically turn a blind eye to the small-time dealers and users.

 

In other words, MJ is illegal de jure, but is freely available with very little risk and is, for all practical reasons, a de facto available drug like cigarettes and alcohol.

 

The dynamics of this system might be slightly different than the experience in the US, the UK or Oz - with quite a couple of interesting lessons to learn.

 

In the Western Cape, there's a serious problem with Tik usage. I don't know much about Tik, apart from the fact that it seriously scrambles your brains. And because of the social impact the big Tik-addict problem in the western Cape has, a lot of studies have been done on it. And you don't have to take my word for it, I will go and look for links and such, but for now just bear with me:

 

It turns out that the vast majority of Tik users (>90%) have started on MJ, which is, for all practical purposes, as freely available as cigarettes - and at about the same price, too. Users have reported that MJ is expressly taken to "trip out", and upon reaching a rather dissappointing plateau, they search for something stronger. This is not to say that they haven't consumed cigarettes and alcohol, too.

 

But the telling part comes in when an addict is in Tik rehab. When they come down from Tik, all they want is MJ. They don't care about cigarettes or alcohol, they can do perfectly without.

 

Some wild claims, surely - but I will go and look for links towards that study.

[Ganoderma]

these people that are always looking for a better, do you think it really has to do with MJ, or is it more they are mentally situated to want a certain feeling. whether they need escape from some kind of mental/physical pain or if they just have the personality the fact is they left MJ because it didn't work well enough for them, it wasn't a strong enough drug. which makes me think that is mj was not around, they would find something else to do.

 

probably different between SA and canada. where i am from in western canada it is more or less similar as far as "being allowed" or tolerable. bigger fish to fry kind of thing. i always read the odd article in the newspaper or on TV about various things like you say. one recent thing is they are putting meth in weed.

 

now the thing all these people are doing is say weed is so bad, there is meth in it now and you can get messed up "only buying pot". which is true, my mom has gotten 2 people in her lab for this exact thing last month.

 

but think it through. these are pretty hard core drug dealers (dealing with meth). so right off the bat we have criminals doing immoral things to unsuspecting people in illegal narcotics. but why do they put it in meth? because its controlled by the gov, but has no absolutely NO control over its production and sale. so its an easy thing for drug dealers to add things to.

 

my question is this. if marijuana becomes a legal controlled thing like alcohol or tobacco in many countries, would the social stigmas and negative social aspects (such as being a criminal, hanging out with the wrong crowd, and mixing up with other drugs)?

 

personally i find that the gateway thing is not due to marijuana so much as the social conditioning that if you use marijuana your a low life criminal. and the fact that some people just want, or need, to get high and the method/end result is not so important as the effectiveness.

 

how many times do we see legal drugs being laced with things? not so common, because they are controlled more or less.

 

Boerseun: I'm curious if you think the gateway theory is really due to the effects of marijuana as a true experience view, or of a social type aspect that when your with your friends getting high, its cool and fun and new things might be as well.

 

 

here is a study. really small sample, and does not hold much weight in my mind...but its interesting anyway.

The herbal remedy: Teens use cannabis for relief, not recreation

The herbal remedy: Teens use cannabis for relief, not recreation

April 22nd, 2009

 

When legal therapies let them down, some teens turn to cannabis. A new study, published in BioMed Central's open access journal Substance Abuse, Treatment, Prevention and Policy suggests that around a third of teens who smoke cannabis on a regular basis use it as a medication, rather than as a means of getting high.

 

 

some more neat studies on this dangerous narcotic.

Cannabis Compounds Reduce Multi-Drug Resistant Infections

Cannabis Compounds Reduce Multi-Drug Resistant Infections

 

Study Says Cannabinoids Show "Exceptional" Antibacterial Activity Against MRSA

 

SAN FRANCISCO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Cannabis Science, Inc. (OTCBB: GFON). Dr. Robert Melamede, PhD., Director and Chief Science Officer, reported to the Board on the current state of research into the use of natural plant cannabinoids to reduce the spread of drug-resistant bacteria, including methicillin-resistant Staphyloccus aureus (MRSA), and the prospects for development of topical whole-cannabis treatments.

[sanctus]

Also Borseun, I have no good friends who now are on hard drugs, but I have many good friends who smoke mj every day since years...I know, this does not prove anything (since only my word for supporting it), but I am pretty sure I am not the only one here who has many smoking friends...

[Ganoderma]

i think there are many who would agree. but i think there will always be people saying that opposite that they know someone, friend of a friend, that ruined their life from marijuana.

 

i am not going to deny the risks involved with intoxication, as there are many things that can happen when in altered states. but i must say that the 12 years i smoked pretty much daily, nothing happened to me except a good body weight (i under eat) and good night sleeps which allowed me to do school and go to work.

 

living here in taiwan its almost non existent and for 3 years have not done it once, so once again i don't eat for a day sometimes and am up until sunrise gardening or something :evil: most of my friends back home are still smoking and still working living and generally having a good happy (safe) time. but their mental "profile" does not fit the hard drug/junky/need a fix type personality so curiosity doesn't really get the cat.

[maddog]

Maybe I can't speak for all culture as I am only familiar with the States. Here MJ is no

Gateway drug. In fact (there is yearly variance), use is on the decline younger adults

for the last few years.

 

For myself, I have taken up Meditation as I find it more enjoyable. :evil:

 

maddog

[Ganoderma]

Think yoga will ever be controlled? The effects on the body are everlasting!

 

i tried meditating, how do you like it. honestly i cant sit still long enough so i tend just to go to sleep after i sat there for a few hours (surprisingly tiring that meditation stuff).

[lemit]

It's off-topic, but I don't think meditation is right for people with short attention spans. That doesn't mean you can't get some of the same results. For example, I like art, so I look for aesthetic patterns around me every day. They give me that same feeling of connection and transformation that meditation is supposed to give.

 

Putting my head against my cat's head seems to lengthen my attention span and somehow transform me. It helps, I suppose, if your cat is a Vulcan. ( I hope I don't get into as much trouble as I did the last time I mentioned my cat.)

 

--lemit

[lemit]

I was looking through the Political Sciences forum for things I might want to comment on when I discovered something that by posting this I will destroy.

 

This thread, "Why is Marijuana Illegal?" was directly above the thread "The type of ignorance that is responsible for corruption."

 

Bingo!

 

--lemit

 

p.s. "The type of ignorance that is responsible for corruption" now immediately follows "What would happen if we legalized drugs?"

 

Is a higher power at work here?

[sanctus]

So Lemit, do you mean that the ignorance out of which results mj being illegal creates corruption or the other way around? Or the fact of questioning it?

[alexander]

First of all, i don't even consider cannabis as being a drug, really, from all the health benefits you can get out of the plant, to making clothes with it, as a plant, it is no more harmful to you then a cow, but is a hell of a lot better for you.

 

Hemp oil for example, it's 3:1 ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 fatty acids, it's made up of about 80% of essential fatty acids (linoleic acid, alpha-linoleic acid, gamma-linoleic acid, omega-6, omega-3 and stearidonic(moronic) acid), and 20% protein, of which 6.6% is edestin, and the rest are albumins, it is much lower in saturated fatty acids then any other culinary oil... (Reference 2)

 

Now as a so-called "illegal drug" cannabis is actually better for you then tobacco. Here's another way to look at it:

Scenario 1: say you choose to smoke either substance

Tobacco, contains nicotine, that leads to chemical addiction, you get a mild high off of it, but your body quickly becomes adapted to this higher level of nicotine that quickly makes the whole point of smoking mute. You start smoking more and more, progressively increasing from maybe a few cigarettes to a pack, to 2 packs, etc, etc. What you get out of it is, ofcourse the satisfaction of not getting the cramps, and lots and lots of soot in your lungs.

Cannabis, contains no chemicals that lead to physical addiction, gets you reasonably high for longer periods of time, continues to get you reasonably high, even as your mind adopts to the level of highness. You smoke much, much more rarely then a cigarette, and quitting is as simple as not buying the "drug" anymore.

Scenario 2: vaporising

Tobacco, with the oils, you still get nicotine in your body, which still makes you dependent on it, while no soot will accumulate in your lungs, you will still continue to seek more and more nicotine to beat the urges

Cannabis, once again, it contains THC, but its not physically addictive. Vaporising gets you a clean high, and the much better extraction of only the oils that contain THC makes you use even less plant then you would before, essentially making it much more harmless then Tobacco.

 

But wait, what are the effects?

Well, lets compare Cannabis to another legal substance, alcohol.

 

Alcohol, well rather ethanol, C2H5OH, is passed through the stomach to the small intestant, where it is rapidly absorbed into the blood stream, which makes it quickly effect all body's functions. It acts as a depressant on the central nervous system. "In low concentrations, alcohol reduces inhibitions. As blood alcohol concentration increases, a person's response to stimuli decreases markedly, speech becomes slurred, and he or she becomes unsteady and has trouble walking" (see reference 1)

As we go through the different stages of intoxication (Euphoria, excitement, confusion, stupor, coma), at even the most beginning stages of intoxication (0.03 BAC (g/100ml blood)), we can see diminishing of attention, judgement, control, impared motory reflex, which means that even low levels of alcohol in the blood impare driving abilities of a person, when we get to confusion state (0.18 BAC) all of this is extremely excentuated, person looses the sense of ballance, we see imparement of judgement on a grandiose scale, leading to apathy, this also puts you in an exaggerated emotional state, that ofcourse with violent tempers lead to some violent and explosive people, the sensory perception starts blurring vision, decreasing color and dimensions perception, increasing pain threshold, etc. Also i should note that there are numerous death every hear from overdose on alcohol.

 

THC, C21H30O2, the effects of the drug are achieved by this chemical bonding to cannabioid receptors (C1 and C2, central nervous and immune systems), "the lack of receptors in the medulla significantly reduces the possibility of accidental, or even deliberate, death from THC, and the lack of receptors in the mesocorticolimbic pathway significantly reduces the risks of addiction and serious physical dependence."(2) Here's what erowid (reference 3) says about negative effects: "

* nausea, especially in combination with alcohol, some pharmaceuticals, or other psychoactives

* coughing, asthma, upper respiratory problems

* difficulty with short term memory during effects and during periods of frequent use (Ranganathan M, D'Souza DC, Psychopharmacology, 2006)

* racing heart, agitation, feeling tense

* mild to severe anxiety

* panic attacks in sensitive users or with very high doses (oral use increases risk of getting too much)

* headaches

* dizziness, confusion

* lightheadedness or fainting (in cases of lowered blood pressure)

* paranoid & anxious thoughts more frequent

* possible psychological dependence on cannabis

* clumsiness, loss of coordination at high doses

* can precipitate or exacerbate latent or existing mental disorders

"

All in all, not extremely unlike alcohol, but not extreme like alcohol.

 

There has never been a documented death from ODing on Cannabis, this is likely also due to the fact that the ratio of effective to lethal dose of THC is around 1:1000, other examples are alcohol 1:10, cocaine 1:15, and heroin 1:6. Lethal dose seems to differ from animal to animan, and from the way of intake, in rats lowest value is by inhalation and is around 42mg of THC per kg of body weight. If it effects humans the same way, this would amount to a massive 8.6 grams of THC for an average 175lb person. Slightly extrapolating here based on some data from Erowid, average weight of high potency dried bud that is required is around 1/30g to get lightly high, 2/30g to get average high, and 1/10g to get a strong high, that ofcourse is nowhere near 100% thc. So to approximate the THC content, medical dosage is 5mg 3 times daily, which in size terms is around 1 cigarette a day weighing less the 1g, so extrapolating, 1 gram of weed yeilds around 15mg of THC, thus to get 8575mg of THC one would need to smoke 571.6g of high potency weed in about 15 minutes of time (also considering that 1lb of high quality bud can go for $1200-2000 (all info from Erowid), and you need 1.3 or so lb, that would be quite an investment). Monkeys show higher lethal threshold values (but no data on inhalation).

 

After all that, my points being (here referring to the "drug"):

1 Cannabis is much less health damaging then tobacco or alcohol, especially if vaporised

2 Cannabis is much less judgement inhibiting and motor-sensory inhibiting then alcohol

3 Cannabis is much safer of a drug with regard to ODing then alcohol or any orther "illegal drug"

4 Cannabis does not effect areas of the brain that are responsible fo body's vital functions, unlike alcohol

 

And to answer 3 questions that will come out of that post, "no i dont", "yes i have" and "yes it should, and it still wont make me run to the store and get some"

 

References:

1 - Physiology / Alcohol and the Human Body / Alcohol Properties

2 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

3 - Erowid

[Jway]

Turns out later that it was a good thing, because whether you agree with it or not, there is a very good argument to be made that marijuana acts as a "gateway" drug, seemingly innocent, but opening the door to ever-more addictive and ever-more harmful and dangerous drugs.

 

Marijuana might have been banned for all the wrong reasons, and the original motive would not pass any monopoly laws anywhere in the world, but it sure as hell is no reason to lift the ban, as far as I'm concerned.

 

Can we hear that "very good argument?"

 

In my experience, I used it and when I found out it wasn't nearly as bad as "they" had said, then I wondered what else they could be lying about while peer pressure said "c'mon dude. It's totally cool and it won't kill you."

 

I'm still alive today.

Oh and virtually drug free for several years. If a doctor prescribes drugs (intended to numb the senses), I'm generally very reluctant.

 

The gateway argument is like saying: squirt guns are a gateway to nuclear weapons. This is why we need squirt gun control in our society. It's to protect the children.

 

LOL.

[alexander]

Also on that "gateway" thing, cannabis does nothing to force you into using other drugs, I think that argument was made by people looking to manipulate data. Their data showed them that people who use Class A drugs used marijuana, perhaps showing that the first "illegal" drug they tried was cannabis. The gateway effect is achieved by saying that cannabis is what led these people to using other drugs, I say if we look at it from another perspective, these people wanted to use drugs to alter the state of conciousness, they tried different drugs, starting from the "mild and safe" cannabis, and then gradually progressing to where they found the drug they want to use, that they like, their discovery route from mild to harder, to hard, merely started with the mildest of the "illegal drug" family. But the same evidence will show that these people have also already used alcohol and/or tobacco, which perhaps altered their state of mind, and they were looking for that high again in a different form (because you need more of each over time to achieve the initial effect). Thus alcohol and tobacco should be called the "gateway" drugs. This gateway effect is stupid, people would use another "illegal" substance if cannabis was nonexistent, perhaps another plant, like salvia (salvia divinorum) or mushrooms, the "gateway" effect is merely a way of manipulating data to support a propaganda point, there are no walls in the drug world, if you want, you can go and start out with LSD, nothing, literaly, nothing stops you, it just so happens that Cannabis is easier to produce in larger quantities, and at a low enough cost and higher availability it is easier and cheaper to "try" then LSD, which is not as readily available, and is hard to dose, mainly because it is hard to guess the concentration in the medium that it comes in, and the onset happens in 20-60 minutes, where marijuana is nearly instant with onset starting in less then a minute, and peaking in about 20 min, making it much easier to dose (I think erowid says something like, take 2-3 hits, wait 5-10 minutes, dont feel enough, take 2-3 hits again, and wait again). Also cannabis is much more predictable, from what i read on erowid, color can determine quality, while the level of thc in the drug will fluctuate, it wont vary as much as say mushrooms which seem to have a very unpredictable reputation...

 

Gateway effect is merely a way to describe a simple pattern in some data...

 

(BTW all the info is from Erowid here)

[sman]

Marijuana is contraband, so in order to obtain it you must expose yourself to bootleggers. From the other side, in order to distribute it, you must exercise all the same precautions for distributing crack, which is much more lucrative, and easy to diversify into.

 

Let's not confuse correlation with causation. It may be that Marijuana is a gateway drug because it is illegal.

[alexander]

Exactly my point.

 

Also there is plenty of cannabis grown in the US :)

[enorbet2]

Considering the historically abject failure of so many efforts to control intoxicating substances (or any other kind for that matter) not only to even "stem the tide" but in fact failure so complete that it actually fuels it's increase, I think we can wrap up the legal issue with a challenge. I absolutely defy anyone to come up with a single example of long term successful control of contraband drugs, medicinals, herbs, you "choose yer poison". It won't matter. So before we even begin to argue whether any government has justification for banning, indirectly or otherwise, the possession of anything that *if* used wrongly might possibly harm one's neighbor, we need to recognize the extreme side effects that come with the territory, like secret police. Preemptive laws against crimes that have yet to happen should only exist in sci-fi.

 

Since it is even harder to control-regulate fasting, chanting, working to exhaustion, rotting or contaminated food, spinning around in circles, etc it is fairly safe to say that by far most, if not all, societies ever in history have allowed some manner of intoxication, and I'm not even here bothering with relatively light affairs as simple as coffee, tea, or chocolate, or other admittedly deadly devices such as cars, guns, knives, and over-the-counter acetaminophen.

 

By creating criminals of people who chose an unpopular means, and it was usually a perceived race or social class that was the original raison d'etre for regulatory banning in the first place, very quickly those ostracized are pressured into dealing with criminals who are criminals for other and much worse reasons, the situation becomes polarized and meaningful dialogue all but ceases. The mystery and "glamour factor" goes up along with the price and profit margin and we have a self-defeating process of law by virtue of supply and demand and more. The huge profits corrupt individual citizens, police forces, entire national governments, creates far-reaching powerful gangs, fuels wars and on and on. This is the nature of "bootleg", of "contraband". So it behooves us, even if we agree with the fundamental right to regulate some possessions, and I don't, to at the very least pick and choose *very* carefully. It is also important to remember that it is far more difficult in most cases to remove an old law than to pass a new one.

 

When discussing wild-growing weeds such as marijuana the laws regulating/banning them, already time-travel preemptive, rely on a further absurd connection to rationalize a justification, that of the so-called "gateway" phenomena. There exists not one shred of scientific evidence, even after millions were spent in the US alone under the Nixon administration to name just one, to "discover" some horrible side-effect or proof of the gateway fairy tale. The attitude of so-called conservatives who only pay lip-service to small government and individual rights, is summed up nicely by Tricky Dick's raging response to the laboratory scientists who could find no links whatsoever for marijuana, "Go back and find me something to support my Scheduling Bill if you have to make it up." (paraphrased, but essentially accurate) Nixon, Marijuana, and the Shafer Commission

 

Not only has there been no successful link establishing the correctness of the "gateway syndrome" there likely can never be one since from whichever perspective one attacks the problem it falls apart as it must. The percentage of those who have tried illegal drugs, even if we don't include the massive set of prescription drug abusers, legal or otherwise, or even just limit the statistics to marijuana alone, to those who have ended up on harder drugs is ridiculously small and that must include the added effect of being thrust into a criminal environment where harder drugs may be more common, and into an ostracized lifestyle that may marginalize employment ie drug testing fueled dismissal. So while there are reportedly some 100 million plus people in the US who have tried marijuana, there are not 100 million crackheads or smack addicts. It is understandably difficult to gather statistics on how many people are addicted to hard drugs but even the highest figures are commonly in single digit percentages relative to the number who try marijuana, 10% is the highest number I have ever seen. That isn't even remotely enough to establish a causal connection since even 50% would not be conclusive.

 

http://www.drugabuse.gov/PDF/DARHW/053-080_Kandall2.pdf

 

http://www.doctordeluca.com/Library/WOD/ProportionsDrugCrisisIncalculable05.pdf

 

BTW please note that I did not choose to use those in favor of decriminalization for my sources but rather the opposite, worst case scenarios of those that favor regulation.

 

So I will extend the challenge and defy anyone to show any credible evidence that the "gateway syndrome" even exists as a function of the substance while ignoring that it is far more likely that the criminalization itself is a more efficient device to behave as a gateway effect. The cure is worse than the disease by orders of magnitude especially when incarceration s thrown into the mix.

 

The greatest weapons against bad behaviours including drug addiction is love, accurate, agenda-free information and life opportunity in a vertical society.

[Jway]

The greatest weapons against bad behaviours including drug addiction is love, accurate, agenda-free information and life opportunity in a vertical society.

 

I concur and don't believe I could've said it better.

 

It may sound too "light and airy" to some to be effective, but accurate and agenda-free is first major step. I was "scared straight" before first ever trying it, and that turned out to be inaccurate information. Now, if I were to speak to young-ins about it, I can't say I would have no bias, but can say, I believe I would speak with sense of balance. Not with sense of forbiddance, but with desire to speak accurately (really honestly). As someone who currently chooses not to use, I couldn't see myself advocating for it's use. Though if it's use was promoted via advertising, and it were legal substance, I wouldn't lose any sleep over fact that I now live in society where it is advertised. Though, I would have high desire to ensure it is presented as substance for use, with sense of balance in the presentation. For every "agent" we bring in that is now so anti-drug, it makes your head spin, we bring in person who seems to be doing very well in daily life and finds enjoyment and peace with their own usage.

 

Love though is the key. If we are co-creating stigmas and condemnation of usage, then we are both daring our young to become rebels and are responsible for manifesting local criminals. Love may not be the easy way to deal with all of this.

 

And then again, it may be.