Metanet Forums

This is mainly for Canadians, but I think an opinion from everybody would also be nice.

So the Green Party in Canada proposed to legalise marijuana to be sold for medicinal reasons. To me, if morphine could be used, then marijuana is really no different, and if it is used solely for medicinal purposes, then marijuana should be considered. But the fact that it could be sold, well inevitably lead to non-medical uses of marijuana. So what do you think about this and what should be done?

This link might or might not change your opinion:
Green Party of Canada: Marijuana Myths

I don't see why it shouldn't be treated the same as any other drug for medicinal purposes. Indeed, I thought this was already the case, especially in Canada.

I think that legalizing controlled substances is actually a good idea in general. Why?
A) We can't afford to keep prosecuting people in the US for drug-related offenses. (Although I'm not sure, I assume Canada has similar budget concerns)
B) Making it legal would reduce the appeal to certain target groups
C) Making it legal would enable government regulation and manufacturing standards, which would heavily reduce the tainted/impure/fake samples that are responsible for a great deal of deaths
D) Making it legal would permit social services to more heavily target it as an addiction requiring assistance
E) Although this isn't a good reason for legalizing anything, there is a clear imbalance in what we consider illegal substances. Alcohol is known to be a great deal more dangerous and costly to deal with than marijuana.

Wow, Jean-Luc said it how I thought Dave would. I agree with all his points, except I take the more ethical stance that legalization only decreases the amount of criminals, rather than increasing the amount of unsafe users. Legalization also leads to more education about the safe practical use of such drugs, probably decreasing the number of abusers.

In addition to what Jean-Luc said, it isn't the government's place to intervene. People own their own bodies and minds, and if they choose to alter them in a peaceful manner, while understanding exactly what they are doing, then it is no one's right to stop them. If someone wants to sit on his couch all day eating cheetos and listening to Pink Floyd, he can be my guest.

The idea that people in need are ever prevented from legally obtaining medicinal marijuana is a little bit disgusting to me. The fact that it can be used recreationally is no reason to withhold medicine from a sick person.

I think that substances that cause a great risk of impaired judgment and harm to others should only be legally obtained in safe environments. If someone wants to be a meth addict, they can, provided they do it in a meth den. Meth done outside a licensed area shouldn't be a criminal offense, it should be considered a medical problem - unless said meth head has been hurting other people.

I just had a debate at school the other day about legalizing weed. I won, 42 votes to 3. (I was the proponency).

I believe that, if drugs are gonna be legalised, there should be an age limit. You must be 21+ for all drugs, including tobacco and marijuana. I agree with Demonz on here, but some younger people don't know any better and will start taking heroin or meth or something.

DemonzLunchBreak wrote:The idea that people in need are ever prevented from legally obtaining medicinal marijuana is a little bit disgusting to me. The fact that it can be used recreationally is no reason to withhold medicine from a sick person.

...there are no alternative medicines?

DemonzLunchBreak wrote:I think that substances that cause a great risk of impaired judgment and harm to others should only be legally obtained in safe environments. If someone wants to be a meth addict, they can, provided they do it in a meth den. Meth done outside a licensed area shouldn't be a criminal offense, it should be considered a medical problem - unless said meth head has been hurting other people.

Well, a bit offtopic from the thread, but you seem to be proposing the conditional legalisation of hard drugs here! I won't go into the obvious negative effects on the individual of meth, but maybe some things to consider are that many drug users obtain money illegally to pay for their addiction, perhaps through theft, prostitution, etc, so I don't see how that can work with the whole "legal and safe environments" thing.

It's a rather cynical attitude that the government should not try to stop people from destroying themselves.

SkyPanda wrote:

DemonzLunchBreak wrote:The idea that people in need are ever prevented from legally obtaining medicinal marijuana is a little bit disgusting to me. The fact that it can be used recreationally is no reason to withhold medicine from a sick person.

...there are no alternative medicines?

Let's say you want to dig a hole. You don't need to, but you want to. Maybe you want to build a koi pond or something.
There are some tools that are very well-suited to the job, such as a shovel, but kids have been known to take shovels and dig holes in their backyards -- unsupervised! (Gasp!)
So shovels are obviously illegal. Schedule I, all the way.
But there are alternatives. You could use a spoon, or a trowel. Or you could use this contraption a huge digging tool manufacturer has made, except that it's significantly more expensive and less effective, particularly because they have to go out of their way to make it dissimilar to a shovel.
OR, instead of bending over backwards for a multitude of extraordinarily stupid reasons, you could just legalize shovels and not worry about the kids, who aren't hurting anyone anyway.

SkyPanda wrote:I won't go into the obvious negative effects on the individual of meth, but maybe some things to consider are that many drug users obtain money illegally to pay for their addiction, perhaps through theft, prostitution, etc, so I don't see how that can work with the whole "legal and safe environments" thing.

Here's a concept I want to introduce you to: It is completely possible to do hard drugs without getting addicted to them.
Addiction rates for cocaine, for example, are 5-6% within 2 years, and 10-15% for 10 years, depending upon your gender and upbringing (the Wikipedia article says race, but I'm interpreting that as an observation and not as something biological).
You've sort of melded together recreational use and satisfying an addiction - I'm not going to whore myself for a drug I'm not addicted to. I might be bummed, just like I might be bummed that I can't afford a Jamba Juice until payday, but I'm not going to be selling my possessions or hurting people.

SkyPanda wrote:It's a rather cynical attitude that the government should not try to stop people from destroying themselves.

As the famous quote goes, I think we should just take the warning labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself.

I don't think anyone wants to legalize everything. I think we just need a fair system under which all substances are classified. Anyone who has used both alcohol and marijuana can tell that their legalities are not based upon the same model. Is marijuana really as bad for you as cocaine? It's classified as such. What criteria did they use? Which criteria apply to marijuana but not to alcohol?

I think if you look into how existing drugs became classified the way they are, you'll find that many are unfairly classified. I think hard drugs (like heroin, meth, and cocaine) might do well to stay illegal, in much the same way as deadly poisons aren't legal to possess. But I think it's necessary to weigh all drugs on the same scale.



Legalizing marijuana, maybe LSD, and maybe psilocybin (a series of "soft drugs" with very low chance of dependency) might be a good step in the right direction. I think people that try to jump the substance-abuse issue from "legalize marijuana for personal use" to "legalize small pox for personal use" might be hurting the cause. Clearly, there's some stuff we shouldn't be able to possess.

That said, I also think it's important to have privacy protections. So, if you do have small pox in your home and you like snorting it--as dangerous as it is to do so--no one should come knocking on your door (unless you are creating a disturbance). In Alaska, using drugs personally is essentially legal, given the state's privacy act. Possession and sale of marijuana is against the law there, but it's even more against the law to kick in someone's door to see what they're up to. I think that's important.

SkyPanda wrote:...there are no alternative medicines?

Not for some conditions, no.

SkyPanda wrote: Well, a bit offtopic from the thread, but you seem to be proposing the conditional legalisation of hard drugs here! I won't go into the obvious negative effects on the individual of meth, but maybe some things to consider are that many drug users obtain money illegally to pay for their addiction, perhaps through theft, prostitution, etc, so I don't see how that can work with the whole "legal and safe environments" thing.

It's a rather cynical attitude that the government should not try to stop people from destroying themselves.

Negative health risks are irrelevant. It's not the government's job to protect people who wish to harm themselves. As long as the individual partaking in whatever hard drug is sane and informed when making their decision, I don't see how someone gets off telling them what they can and cannot do.

If drug users break the law, then they can be arrested for doing that. There's no inherent property of drug abuse that makes a person steal. Stealing is an affair that should be treated separately, from a legal standpoint. Perhaps the government could require hard-drug companies to receive payment for their services ahead of time. This way, drug users will have no motivation to steal when addicted to their drug. If they steal without doing hard drugs, then they're thieves, not addicts. Part of this whole "safe environment" dealio is that the den supervises the person and does not release them until they're completely detoxed.

Another thing that the government could do would be to require hard-drug dens to provide a complete rehab service for their clients.

lastly, the government does not own its citizens. If a person who is not clinically depressed wants to destroy him or her self, the government has no legitimate reason to step in. If, however, a person's decision making is impaired in some way, be it by clinical depression or intoxication, then the government has the right to step in.

But yeah, err, soft drugs should probably be legalized and the model tested before we can even consider legalizing hard drugs.

Is marijuana really as bad for you as cocaine? It's classified as such.

I'd like to correct this. This is a common myth; marijuana is not classed as being as bad for you as cocaine.
Rather, it's classed as being worse for you than cocaine. Marijuana is Schedule I. Cocaine is Schedule II.

Also, we were, uh, discussing Canadian laws.

If it's positively used and distributed, I don't see why not.

scythe33 wrote:

Is marijuana really as bad for you as cocaine? It's classified as such.

I'd like to correct this. This is a common myth; marijuana is not classed as being as bad for you as cocaine.
Rather, it's classed as being worse for you than cocaine. Marijuana is Schedule I. Cocaine is Schedule II.

Also, we were, uh, discussing Canadian laws.

I figured we could talk about the entire US nation instead of just one of its states, for the scope of this argument.

blue_tetris wrote:

scythe33 wrote:

Also, we were, uh, discussing Canadian laws.[/color]

I figured we could talk about the entire US nation instead of just one of its states, for the scope of this argument.

Yeah, more or less.

While I agree with the idea of legalizing marijuana, I disagree with the Green Party's "anything goes" mentality.

I'm pretty much agreeing with everyone's input here.

I'm for legalizing marijuana, but not other "hard drugs".

It would most likely decrease the amount of crimes involved, whether directly or indirectly.

Seeing as the topic isn't quite clear, the legalisation of marijuana is being debated/proposed by the green party for this upcoming election, as I just had a class discussion just last week.

jean-luc's post really shows what I thought of this, and quite frankly, it makes perfect sense. But the counter arguments exist and will be brought onto the topic, such as the well being of citizens and how it affects the country in certain aspects.

The economy of Canada, (I'm not too sure about other countries, but this is how it is for us.) will dramatically be altered in a sense of more profits as a whole, and a whole different view on taxes. I heard that changes whether rises upwards to two million could occur, and the taxation will be a bit more dependent on the sales of marijuana. I can't confirm this, as I only heard this on the news just waking up, so I might've heard things differently, but I'm quite sure I got the gist of it. (If anyone can confirm it, then please do.)

The health rating of Canada could easily go either way, depending on how strict the marijuana laws are enforced. And that could very well be the main dilemma here, since when used medicinally, it is beneficial, but when abused, can be harmful.

I'm not so sure about crime rates, but theoretically, it should go down, but this is medical issues versus gang-related issues, so it might not be affected.

Yes, legalising pot is what's important. Not the economy or solving world hunger. Good priorities, Canada.

Kablizzy wrote:Yes, legalising pot is what's important. Not the economy or solving world hunger. Good priorities, Canada.

Next we're going to socialize freedom.

Kablizzy wrote:Yes, legalising pot is what's important. Not the economy or solving world hunger. Good priorities, Canada.

I'm sure you meant "Good priorities, Green Party."
Cause that's basically their pitch.

I too agree that we should certainly not legalize all controlled substances. Some substances are seriously very dangerous. But I do think we need an objective system for rating substance dangers. This rating system should be based on statistics and medical research (a.k.a. 'Science'), not what Steven Levitt terms 'popular outrage.'

Substances which are legitimitely safe (or rather, not very dangerous) should be sold in a regulated but open fashion, similar to how liquor stores work (in fact, liquor stores are an obvious place to sell drugs). The FDA (or the respective country's equivalent agency) should regulate the product to ensure that it is acceptable pure, and the DEA can enforce possession/sale laws. I think it's probably a good idea to use the same age as alcohol - 21. Actually, I think the alcohol age itself should be changed. Generally accepted medical research suggests that the brain is not fully formed until the age of 25, and that the use of mind-altering substances before this formation is complete may result in damage. This suggests that it may be appropriate to raise the drinking age. I don't believe that extensive research has been done to determine if marijuana has the same effect on the developing brain, so further research may be required before sound laws can be made.

Drugs that are found to be dangerous (have a permanent or long-term detrimental effect) or highly addictive (I'd say more than in 10% of cases) shouldn't be sold. However, I tend to think that possession shouldn't be a crime.

I do think that it is the governments place to stop people from hurting themselves, to an extent. The government and medical agencies need to be sure that people are fully aware of the consequences of their actions. However, I'd say that if people know that meth will totally screw over every part of their body in 15 different ways and they still want to use it, they might as well.

Kablizzy wrote:Yes, legalising pot is what's important. Not the economy or solving world hunger. Good priorities, Canada.

I think Canada is in the black, economically.

As for world hunger, I don't think we can put off things until Africa isn't hungry anymore. We've been using that line since 19-dickety-2.

DemonzLunchBreak wrote:Negative health risks are irrelevant.

Alright sure, governments and free will and such seems like a separate discussion.

DemonzLunchBreak wrote:If drug users break the law, then they can be arrested for doing that. There's no inherent property of drug abuse that makes a person steal. Stealing is an affair that should be treated separately, from a legal standpoint. Perhaps the government could require hard-drug companies to receive payment for their services ahead of time. This way, drug users will have no motivation to steal when addicted to their drug. If they steal without doing hard drugs, then they're thieves, not addicts.

Part of this whole "safe environment" dealio is that the den supervises the person and does not release them until they're completely detoxed.

Another thing that the government could do would be to require hard-drug dens to provide a complete rehab service for their clients.

Suppose these hard drug dens are legalised. Enter example person John. John frequents these dens, and becomes addicted to a hard drug. He uses regularly, and the negative physical and emotional effects of his drug-taking render him unable to find employment. He is addicted to the drug, but cannot afford to pay for it. What would be the most likely course of action for John? Use illegal methods to obtain money, then either return to the drug den, or buy lower quality, cheaper drugs off the black market. I think that even if such drug dens were legalised, a black market would still exist to take advantage of cases like poor John.
So in this hypothetical situation, even though we now have legal hard drug dens, due to cases like John's, we still have crime and a black market.

Now, your suggestion that drug users be made to pay for their drugs in advance is an interesting one, but it seems rather flawed to me. In the case of addicts who use for periods of ten years or more, are they to be expected to pay for ten years worth of drugs in advance. That's not going to happen, enter black market. Furthermore, when a system is getting that complicated, surely the government would be better off just keeping hard drugs illegal, helping drug users to destroy their bodies and minds is not worth the trouble.

As for your idea that these drug dens could serve a dual function as rehab centres, that seems a little contradictary and maybe not quite thought out. For clarification, are you proposing that these dens are prisons, corporate businesses, rehab centres, or a twisted mix of all three? :/



EDIT: Thanks yanni. I shall make you a cookie :)



Yanni edit: Edited in apostrophes for ya. The code you need is [quote="DemonzLunchBreak"]

I think the chance of Canada successfully legalising pot is much greater than the chance of Canada solving world hunger any time soon. At least they know what they're good at.

Skypanda wrote:Suppose these hard drug dens are legalised. Enter example person John. John frequents these dens, and becomes addicted to a hard drug. He uses regularly, and the negative physical and emotional effects of his drug-taking render him unable to find employment. He is addicted to the drug, but cannot afford to pay for it. What would be the most likely course of action for John? Use illegal methods to obtain money, then either return to the drug den, or buy lower quality, cheaper drugs off the black market. I think that even if such drug dens were legalised, a black market would still exist to take advantage of cases like poor John.

Some think the only recourse is to lock poor John up in prison. It sounds to me like John has a medical problem called addiction. You can have this medical problem with alcohol, gambling, pornography, or video games. Why are we trying to diagnose a medical problem with a legal remedy? It seems to me that we should diagnose John's medical problem with a trip to a doctor or therapist.

Skypanda wrote:So in this hypothetical situation, even though we now have legal hard drug dens, due to cases like John's, we still have crime and a black market.

It's possible to stop a transaction from either angle, by stopping the buyer or the seller. If I have 250 mg of cocaine on me, there's an insanely small chance I'm going to be selling it. In fact, there's very little I can do with this baggie. It's nearly impossible for me to commit any violent crimes using this stuff as a weapon, any better than I could use boiling water or a fist. I am breaking the law by having it. I am a non-violent criminal for having no influence on anyone and tempering my decisions as best I can.

Another good talking point is "Why does the government need to protect us from making stupid decisions?" We skydive, we chug vodka, we buy frivolous things, and we have sex with the wrong people. The government can't hold our hand through all of that. It's only a crime when we push someone else off a plane, spike someone's drink, defraud someone's contracts, or force someone to have sex with us.