mrbassline
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2009
- Messages
- 16
- Reaction score
- 1
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Someday, hopefully, people will stop believing in that myth.All legalizing would do is make more people use it
Decriminalization is said to increase availability, encourage use, and provide disincentives to quit. Thus, we expected longer careers and fewer quitters in Amsterdam, but our findings did not support these expectations. (snip) With the exception of higher drug use in San Francisco, we found
strong similarities across both cities. We found no evidence to support claims that criminalization reduces use or that decriminalization increases use.
http://www.mapinc.org/lib/limited.pdf
(American Journal of Public Health)
In sum, there is little evidence that decriminalization of marijuana use necessarily leads to a substantial increase in marijuana use."
Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base
(National Academy of Sciences - Institute of Medicine)
Generally, decriminalization is not found to significantly impact drug use. An implication is that the demand for drugs is highly inelastic with respect to incremental changes in the legal sanctions for possession of small amounts of marijuana.
There is no strong evidence that decriminalization effects either the choice or frequency of use of drugs, either legal (alcohol) or illegal (marijuana and cocaine).
http://www.icjia.state.il.us/GoTo20...N OF MARIJUANA AND THE DEMAND FOR ALCOHOL.doc
(Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority)
The available evidence indicates that the "decriminalization" of marijuana possession had little or no impact on rates of use. Although rates of marijuana use increased in those U.S. states which reduced maximum penalties for possession to a fine, the prevalence of use increased at similar or higher rates in those states which retained more severe penalties. There were also no discernable impacts on the health care systems. On the other hand, the so-called "decriminalization" measures did result in substantial savings in the criminal justice system.
The impact of marijuana decriminalization: an upda...[J Public Health Policy. 1989] - PubMed Result
(National Center for Biotechnology Information)
The preponderance of the evidence gathered and examined for this study points to the conclusion that decriminalization had virtually no effect either on the marijuana use or on related attitudes and beliefs about marijuana use among American young people in this age group. The degree of disapproval young people hold for marijuana use, the extent to which they believe such use is harmful, and the degree to which they perceive the drug to be available to them were also unaffected by the law change.
NCJRS Abstract - National Criminal Justice Reference Service
(National Criminal Justice Reference Service)
Several lines of evidence on the deterrent effects of marijuana laws [3], and on decriminalization experiences in the United States, the Netherlands, and Australia suggest that eliminating (or significantly reducing) criminal penalties for first-time possession of small quantities of marijuana has either no effect or a very small effect on the prevalence of marijuana use.
Major publications from the RAND Drug Policy Research Center's
(University of California, Berkely)
The available evidence indicates that depenalisation of the possession of small quantities of cannabis does not increase cannabis prevalence. The Dutch experience suggests that commercial promotion and sales may significantly increase cannabis prevalence.
Evaluating alternative cannabis regimes (and follow-up comments)
(The British Journal of Psychiatry)
Fear of apprehension, fear of being imprisoned, the cost of cannabis or the difficulty in obtaining cannabis do not appear to exert a strong influence on decisions about cannabis consumption, at least amongst the vast majority of 18-29 year olds. Those factors may limit cannabis use among frequent cannabis users but there is no evidence, as yet, to support this conjecture.
Lawlink NSW: B58 - Does prohibition deter cannabis use?
(Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Germany)
The available data indicate that these decriminalisation measures had little or no impact on rates of use.
http://dassa.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/MONOGRAPH6.pdf
(Drug and Alcohol Services Council, South Australia)
There is no evidence to date that the CEN system in South Australia has increased levels of regular cannabis use, or rates of experimentation among young adults.
http://www.aodgp.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/332B63EE0E0E0C39CA25703700041DAC/$File/mono37.pdf
(National Drug Strategy Household Surveys, South Austrailia)
In Australia the evidence is accumulating -- from public attitude surveys coming down on the side of liberalising cannabis laws, from criminal justice system data indicating a vast, expensive and relatively punitive net being cast over youthful cannabis users, and from evidence that liberalisation does not increase cannabis use -- that the total prohibition approach is costly, ineffective as a general deterrent, and does not fit with the National Drug Strategy's goal of harm minimisation.
Australian Institute of Criminology - Error
(Austrailian Institute of Criminology)
Clearly, by itself, a punitive policy towards possession and use accounts for limited variation in nation level rates of illegal drug use.
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050141
(Public Library of Science, World Health Organization)
Because I don't think it is. We already have too many stoners getting away with it and all of them are seriously tarnishing our society. All legalizing would do is make more people use it and rates of lung cancer and pot-related accidents would skyrocket. No wonder only stoners support legalization.
You have all opinion, without a single grounded premise.
Accidents are caused by people not paying attention. Should legislation be created that prosecutes people for not constantly focusing, because it has been shown to cause accidents?
How do you enforce it? Cannabis is a victimless crime, and the enforcement of such a law has unintended consequences that far outweigh the benefits. From an opportunity cost standpoint, busting cannabis users and sellers costs the time needed to do so, when there are many serious crimes being committed daily.
You can start debating any time now. :2wave:Yet more typical pro-weed garbage from a pot smoker. :bs
Yet more typical pro-weed garbage from a pot smoker. :bs
Could you try to post some information about weed that will convince me to support legalization?
Oh, that's right, you can't because all of it is a bunch of lies to make law-abiding non-smokers look bad.
Yet more typical pro-weed garbage from a pot smoker. :bs
Because I don't think it is. We already have too many stoners getting away with it and all of them are seriously tarnishing our society. All legalizing would do is make more people use it and rates of lung cancer and pot-related accidents would skyrocket. No wonder only stoners support legalization.
Totally agree that drugs are bad. But since prohibition actually causes more problems than it solves, legalization would be good for society in the same way removing a knife from your back would be good for your health. :yes:No, it isn't good for society.
Drugs are bad. :yes:
Do you also agree with me that by legalizing drugs you increase its usage among the people in the society?Totally agree that drugs are bad. But since prohibition actually causes more problems than it solves, legalization would be good for society in the same way removing a knife from your back would be good for your health. :yes:
No, absolutely not. Didn't you read post #2? The number 1 most important fact surrounding this issue is that there is no known correlation between drug laws and the rate of drug use. The world's foremost experts on the subject all say that the legal status of a drug is not a predictor of the use of that drug. In countries all across the world, they see the same trend over and over again: harsher penalties do not deter use and lighter penalties do not encourage use. When people choose not to use drugs, it's not because of the laws, it's because of health hazards and social stigmas. The laws only determine where drugs are used, not whether they are used.Do you also agree with me that by legalizing drugs you increase its usage among the people in the society?
So you're basically saying that there is no such person that would not take drugs just because it's illegal?The laws only determine where drugs are used, not whether they are used.
So you're basically saying that there is no such person that would not take drugs just because it's illegal?
You're saying that forbidding drugs by the law will not effect anyone, and that if drugs won't mean jail the number of people who use it would not increase at all?
Forgive me but I find this claim to be against every kind of logic and common sense.
Please elaborate further as to why you believe that people don't take drugs' illegality as a reason not to use drugs.
What leads you to claim that people that do not use drugs, out of the reason of illegality, are people who just 'try' drugs, and aren't going to use it commonly and become addicts?There are certainly people who don't do something simply because its illegal, and would be likely to "try" it, but they are unlikely to become addicts. There are also many non-conformist posers who will find that they feel less cool doing something that is now condoned by society; and would quit.
No buddy, enjoy your poison.I just bought a 1/4 oz of pot. Should I go to jail? Is any one going to report me?
He said they are "unlikely" to become addicted. Implicitly, that acknowledges the possibility that there might be occasional exceptions that don't fit the greater trend.What leads you to claim that people that do not use drugs, out of the reason of illegality, are people who just 'try' drugs, and aren't going to use it commonly and become addicts?
I've seen no study that suggests such a thing.
No, I'm not saying there is "no such person" because I realize there will be exceptions. What I'm saying is that those people are the exceptions. Out of all the countries and states that have decriminalized certain drugs, none of them experienced an increase in drug use as a result. Clearly, even in the face of a few exceptions here and there, the obvious and overwhelming trends remain unchanged: drug laws have no known effect on whether drugs are used.So you're basically saying that there is no such person that would not take drugs just because it's illegal?
You're saying that forbidding drugs by the law will not effect anyone, and that if drugs won't mean jail the number of people who use it would not increase at all?
I gave you 12 different studies to support that. See post #2.Please elaborate further as to why you believe that people don't take drugs' illegality as a reason not to use drugs.
No buddy, enjoy your poison.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?