I don't understand this logic:
Opponents of looser marijuana laws say it could promote usage of harder drugs.
How does that work?
I can see if it were similar to a speed limit. The limit is 100kph and people will do 110-120kph; if the limit were 120kph, people would do 130-140kph.
But this is a different thing, this isn't a matter of quantity, this is a question of quality. It's more akin to saying that there are people who want to drive at 110kph and if the limit were put there people would all go out and get more expensive and faster cars.
It's akin to saying you can drink coffee, but we don't want to let you have espresso because next thing we know you'll be injecting caffeine into your veins.
Or we won't let you use any spices hotter than black pepper, because you might then go out and get habanero peppers.
I don't think anyone who is in favor of decriminalizing marijuana would say that they are interested in these things.
Are the people saying that decriminalization would be tantamount to saying that all drugs are good? I don't think you'd find many marijuana users or users of harder drugs saying that the two are in any way alike.
Anyways, here's another link I found: http://www.commondreams.org/news2004/0503-09.htm
I won't link to the hempfiles, because I imagine that would be considered a bit too biased, but pretty much the same info was found there, just older.
Oh, for the record I've never used anything outside of alcohol and a painkiller when I had a tooth removed. No plans for becoming a heroin junkie if marijuana is decriminalized. For that matter, I don't have any plans for taking up marijuana either.
The thing with pot is that it's considered a gateway drug. Those who enjoy the sensation they get from pot are likelier to try another drug if they're told it produces a pot-like high.
Me? I'm all for the use of medical marijuana as long as it's dispensed from a pharmacy...and grown in a controlled environment (quality and consistency, you know?)
Posted by: Da Goddess on Julio 22, 2004 02:52 PMSee that's what I don't understand, where they are getting this concept that it will produce that effect.
Certainly all the studies I found that did research in Amsterdam reflected none of that. It sounds like propaganda to me.
Posted by: Hugin on Julio 22, 2004 03:10 PMWelllll.....
Two things come to mind (from personal observations inside the entertainment business):
a) If it's easier and potentially cheaper, users will use more (same argument as raising price of tobacco, I suppose) - I've seen this effect when street prices change.
b) If it's not illegal, casual users will increase in numbers, simply because there is less risk and no legal downside; it also assumes general societal acceptance for the practice.
In general, I would say that it's too big a societal decison to risk, and the consequences are too far down the road to assess accurately.
But from personal observation, not positive.
(Also, in general, tha argument is usually made by those who have something personal to gain - it's not an abstract argument to them....)
I would say that there would theoretically be a small increase, but I can't see it being staggering, since at least in Montreal people generally use without worry. The decriminilization certainly wouldn't have any real effect on amount of use by an already using individual.
As for increase in casual use, certainly it would be easier for someone to `try', again in Montreal that isn't really an issue either. Generally you know someone who knows someone.
Maybe for other places in Canada it would be more of an issue, but really I don't see the harm.
I love this quote from the director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy made in 2002:
"We also know that if you make it more available, you'll get more marijuana use. More use leads to more addiction and more problems."
Because regular cigarettes aren't addictive or problematic...
As for the potential future risks inherent in decriminilization I just don't see them. Maybe it creates some kind of precedent that could be used to decriminilize harder drugs? I don't see that happening.
As for the argument being put forward by those with more to gain, I can see that. On the other hand, we are talking about small amounts and posession, not distribution.
The time/effort spent enforcing those laws, prosecuting them, etc seems like a great deal spent on basically very little compared to other issues/narcotics.
And if/when other issues arise from the decriminilization, we can deal with them appropriately.
It isn't always a good idea to not do something because of what `might' happen.
To give one example.
It might fail, it might not work, it might hurt someone. There were failers, some things didn't work, and some people died - still made it to the moon.
Some would argue about the benefits outweighing the risks on this issue; others would say that they benefits weren't worth it.
The same goes for the decriminilization of MJ.
Not being a user or distributor, I don't have an agenda, I also don't have any first hand knowledge that might allow me to better determine potential future difficulties, but from where I do stand, the benefits outweigh the risks.
Posted by: Hugin on Julio 23, 2004 10:23 AMMight I suggest seeing penn and Tellers Bullshit show on just this subject. Quite funny and informative including the one man who gets it from the government year after year. Who knew?
Posted by: shelli on Julio 27, 2004 11:17 AM