Is legalizing marijuana good for society? (1 Viewer)

[Caine]

So, clearly, cannabis is bad for you. The question is whether it's bad enough to make it illegal and one of the most prosecuted serious crimes. I don't think your study demonstrates this.

:rofl I literally LoLed at that...

"serious crime"... lol

Do you consider a serious crime one that I can just write you a ticket for and leave you on your merry little way?

 

[Dutch]

Your ignorance about the issue at hand is simply stunning. People die because drugs are illegal. Do you think that the black market drug trade would exist if these substances were legalized and regulated? :doh

You mean like california? There was a cap at 70 locations in LA, there are 187 registered of which 137 are in their original locations? There are between 800 and 1000 non-registered locations? What the hell is this? Where is the regulation? The short answer is there is no regulation.

source

December 8, 2009 | 3:09 pm
Seeking to bring the city's medical marijuana dispensary boom under tight control, the Los Angeles City Council decided today to cap the total number at 70, but to allow those that originally registered with the city to remain open.

Under the city's 2007 moratorium on new dispensaries, 186 registered with the city. Officials believe at least 137 of those remain open in their original locations. Under the motion adopted this afternoon, those dispensaries could stay open but could be required to move to comply with the ordinance's restrictions on where they may locate.


Councilman Jose Huizar proposed a cap to ensure that dispensaries would not be concentrated in any one neighborhood. Currently, with no ordinance in place to control their location, dispensaries have clustered in some neighborhoods, such as Eagle Rock, Hollywood and Woodland Hills, drawn by empty storefronts or by proximity to night life.

Urging the city to adopt a low number that it could control, Huizar said that "it is always easier to roll up than to ramp down."

Councilman Dennis Zine argued strongly to give preference to the dispensaries that registered with the city. "I think we should hold true to those that followed the rules," he said

After adopting the cap, the council turned to other aspects of the proposed ordinance. It remained unclear when the entire package might come to a final vote.

City officials say between 800 and 1,000 dispensaries are operating. Most opened in violation of a moratorium that the city failed to enforce and that a judge has recently decided was invalid because the City Council illegally extended it........

 

[Dutch]

No I mean controls like what is in place for a current non medicinal intoxicant, with limited distribution points, strict ID checks, penalties for distribution to minors, ect. We can learn from and improve on an already existing model. I mean beer (well alcohol as a whole).. you know the one you glossed over so you can highlight an unrelated problem that has a primary use based in medicine, and a totally unrelated system of distribution.

not controls modeled after our distribution of medications (which could stand some improvements). not controls like oblivious parents having pill bottles un-inventoried sitting around for who knows how long in their medicine cabinet screaming "take me", and not controls like "my friend Joe there has a script for Adderol (sp?) or Ritalin , well heck so does Jenny, and Bob, and Joan, all of whom will willingly sell me a pill if I just ask."

vials of coke is not going to be sitting around unnoticed and forgotten in millions of medicine cabinets, nor will it be prescribed to an ever growing number of peers who would just as soon sell you a pill than take their medicine.

You are becoming more and more selective in regards to what is being covered and what you choose to seize upon in order to argue, weird, it almost seems like you are grasping.

You had decided my sentence warranted being put in bold and italics, yet all you did was deflect and not answer, so here I will ask again:

As far as children getting alcohol, since it is not 100% would you rather we remove the drinking age and have zero controls, or do you admit that although imperfect we need to keep the controls in place?

I humbly suggest we aren't. LA can't seem to afford to regulate it's "medical dispenseries."

source

.....Enforcement of a much-debated medical marijuana ordinance will be light because there will not be enough workers available to police illegal dispensaries, Councilwoman Jan Perry said this week. Efforts to update decades-old zoning rules are being dropped, killing a move to give homeowner groups and real estate developers a more reliable set of regulations......

Tight regulation isn't happening. I suggest it won't happen. It can't happen. It was never meant to happen.

The slippery slope of marijuana regulation
Social attitudes toward the drug have moved beyond legal and political thinking. No wonder the L.A. City Council is having such a tough time.
By Tim Rutten

December 16, 2009
There are about 120 Starbucks coffee outlets within the Los Angeles city limits. According to the most reliable estimates, there are somewhere between 900 and 1,000 medical marijuana dispensaries.

Mull over the implications of that comparison and you're on the way to understanding why the City Council seems enmeshed in an endless wrangle over how to regulate the number and sites of the nonprofit cooperatives allowed by local ordinance to distribute cannabis to individuals with doctors' prescriptions. So far, it's been a debate whose observers could be forgiven for wondering whether they'd entered the council through a looking glass. All that's missing is the Hookah-smoking Caterpillar....snip....

....snip...In 1996, medical marijuana was promoted as a substance that would alleviate the suffering of people going through chemotherapy or battling AIDS. Today, according to the federal Drug Enforcement Administration, 40% of the prescriptions are for chronic pain, 22% for AIDS-related conditions, 15% for "mood disorders" and 23% for "other" illnesses. The source of the DEA's numbers? Why, the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.

The real reason the City Council is having such a hellish time coming to grips with this issue is that this is one of those areas where social attitudes and thinking simply have moved beyond conventional legal thinking or, for that matter, the permissible language of politics. Medical marijuana was, from the start, a back door to legalization, and now it's swung wide open. If we really believed cannabis was a normative medical remedy, it would be sold in pharmacies like everything else your doctor prescribes. Instead, the council is trying to regulate it in just the way we control bars or liquor stores or any other vendor of recreational intoxicants, while paying lip service to the really rather limited medicinal necessities.....

 

[Skateguy]

Man, after reading all that---I need a big bowl right now---whew

 

[Dutch]

That will be as soon as you understand the difference between a source and a blog. In the meantime, don't spread lies about my country ever again.

You indicated marijuana usage increased after decriminalization yourself. So, in point of fact I haven't spread any lies about your country. What is it that makes you so hyper-sensitive?

 

[Dutch]

Man, after reading all that---I need a big bowl right now---whew

Be my guest. Here's a little light reading for ya' after your bowl. :mrgreen:

source

.....Scientists know that marijuana smoke has adverse effects on the lungs. However, there is little knowledge about marijuana's potential to cause lung cancer due to the difficulty in identifying and studying people who have smoked only marijuana.

The new study begins to address that question by comparing marijuana smoke vs. tobacco smoke in terms of toxicity to cells and to DNA. Scientists exposed cultured animal cells and bacteria to condensed smoke samples from both marijuana and tobacco. There were distinct differences in the degree and type of toxicity elicited by marijuana and cigarette smoke.....

 

[Skateguy]

Be my guest. Here's a little light reading for ya' after your bowl. :mrgreen:

source

thanks Man, I needed that. After smokin for more than 45 years, I wasn't sure I knew what I was doing.---Now I feel all informed and stuff.

 

[Dutch]

thanks Man, I needed that. After smokin for more than 45 years, I wasn't sure I knew what I was doing.---Now I feel all informed and stuff.

I'm here to serve. :mrgreen:

 

[First Thought]

You mean like california? There was a cap at 70 locations in LA, there are 187 registered of which 137 are in their original locations? There are between 800 and 1000 non-registered locations? What the hell is this? Where is the regulation? The short answer is there is no regulation.

source

That's California's issue then. If the state wants to legalize it, they need to do a good job of regulating it. Unfortunately for your argument, I don't think the owners of dispensaries are shooting people.

 

[Dutch]

That's California's issue then. If the state wants to legalize it, they need to do a good job of regulating it. Unfortunately for your argument, I don't think the owners of dispensaries are shooting people.

Just how sure are you the mexican cartels aren't providing the "product" to dispense?

 

[First Thought]

Just how sure are you the mexican cartels aren't providing the "product" to dispense?

Do you have evidence to support such an assumption?

 

[Rassales]

Do you have evidence to support such an assumption?

Even if Mexican cartels were providing the product, legalizing pot would eliminate the need to obtain it from illegal sources. It's not logical to argue that we shouldn't legalize a product because of the negative consequences of its being illegal.

 

[Binary_Digit]

Dutch,

Your assertions about the Netherlands are contrary to what I posted in the 2nd post of this thread:

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)

If it's your intent to continue asserting that drug laws affect the rate of use, I would invite you to re-read that post and then find some credible sources (i.e. not blogs) to refute it. Good luck!

 

[Dutch]

Do you have evidence to support such an assumption?

Nope and you don't have evidence they don't either.......because the "dispensaries" are unregulated. :doh


source

...........Green Oasis and a number of other medical marijuana collectives sued the city last month, challenging its efforts to control the dispensaries. The lawsuit argued that the City Council violated state law when it extended the ban until mid-March and that it is unconstitutionally vague.

Although the injunction applies only to Green Oasis, the judge's ruling calls into question the city's power to enforce the moratorium against hundreds of dispensaries that have opened in the last two years. The ruling could inspire other dispensaries to join the lawsuit or file similar actions.


Despite the moratorium, the city has seen explosive growth in the number of dispensaries. Under the ban, the city allowed 186 outlets to remain open. Many more – the exact number is unknown – are operating in neighborhoods across the city, and more continue to open.

In its answer to the lawsuit, the city argued that the moratorium is not subject to the conditions and limitations of state law because it is not an ordinance dealing with zoning, but with public safety. Zoning ordinances cannot be extended beyond 24 months. The city adopted the first of two moratoriums on Aug. 1, 2007......

 

[Dutch]

Dutch,

Your assertions about the Netherlands are contrary to what I posted in the 2nd post of this thread:

If it's your intent to continue asserting that drug laws affect the rate of use, I would invite you to re-read that post and then find some credible sources (i.e. not blogs) to refute it. Good luck!

Ok.


source

......Other countries have also had this experience. The Netherlands has had its own troubles with increased use of cannabis products. From 1984 to 1996, the Dutch liberalized the use of cannabis. Surveys reveal that lifetime prevalence of cannabis in Holland increased consistently and sharply. For the age group 18-20, the increase is from 15 percent in 1984 to 44 percent in 1996......

 

[First Thought]

Nope and you don't have evidence they don't either......

Good, glad we cleared that up.

because the "dispensaries" are unregulated.

That's California's problem. You're comparing the most populous state in the republic trying to regulate marijuana to the Federal government trying to do so. It's a bit different, and I'm sorry you seem to not get that.

 

[Binary_Digit]

Ok.


source

The rate of use in Germany almost parallels the rate of use in the Netherlands during that period, even though Germany has maintained some of the strictest marijuana laws.

Nice try though!

 

[Dutch]

Good, glad we cleared that up.


That's California's problem. You're comparing the most populous state in the republic trying to regulate marijuana to the Federal government trying to do so. It's a bit different, and I'm sorry you seem to not get that.

No, it's our problem. Many on this thread advocate legalization and regulation of marijuana and other illegal drugs as an alternative to what we are doing now. I've provided an example of just how regulation isn't occuring. What you, and others are proposing, isn't working even as we debate the issue. Let me restate that "your idea of regulation as a means of controlling the negative effects of drug legalization isn't working." Just in case you didn't read the articles it isn't working even as we speak. No one knows where all of the "dispensaries" are located. No one knows where the marijuana is coming from. According to at least one judge the only public entity trying to regulate the "dispensaries" doesn't have the legal right to do so. Ooops. :shock:

 

[Djoop]

You indicated marijuana usage increased after decriminalization yourself. So, in point of fact I haven't spread any lies about your country. What is it that makes you so hyper-sensitive?

No I did not. Usage decreased after decriminalisation. Thanks for giving me yet another chance to correct the lies on that blog of yours. The policy is 30 years old, the increase is since 2004, is marginal, and the numbers are still better than the US. It annoys me you keep ignoring these facts and by doing so, you are spreading misinformation about my country. I'm sensitive about that.
When it's about Arkansas I'll shut up and listen to you.

 

[First Thought]

No, it's our problem. Many on this thread advocate legalization and regulation of marijuana and other illegal drugs as an alternative to what we are doing now. I've provided an example of just how regulation isn't occuring. What you, and others are proposing, isn't working even as we debate the issue. Let me restate that "your idea of regulation as a means of controlling the negative effects of drug legalization isn't working." Just in case you didn't read the articles it isn't working even as we speak. No one knows where all of the "dispensaries" are located. No one knows where the marijuana is coming from. According to at least one judge the only public entity trying to regulate the "dispensaries" doesn't have the legal right to do so. Ooops. :shock:

...and The War On Drugs is a flawless and valiant effort to rid the streets of illegal substances. :roll:

 

[Binary_Digit]

The rate of use in Germany almost parallels the rate of use in the Netherlands during that period, even though Germany has maintained some of the strictest marijuana laws.

Nice try though!

Just in case you need a source (my old one is now a dead link FSR):

The figures for cannabis use among the general population reveal the same pictures. The Netherlands does not differ greatly from other European countries.

Cannabis Facts - medical marijuana information

 

[Dutch]

No I did not. Usage decreased after decriminalisation. Thanks for giving me yet another chance to correct the lies on that blog of yours. The policy is 30 years old, the increase is since 2004, is marginal, and the numbers are still better than the US. It annoys me you keep ignoring these facts and by doing so, you are spreading misinformation about my country. I'm sensitive about that.
When it's about Arkansas I'll shut up and listen to you.

Aw hell, feel free to pile on anytime your want, most of the us does anyway. Now I have this. Mind you you'll pretty much hate the source but it does refer to an increase in usage after decriminalization. Do you have any sources you would like to share that indicate usage went down after decriminalization?


source

.....Other countries have also had this experience. The Netherlands has had its own troubles with increased use of cannabis products. From 1984 to 1996, the Dutch liberalized the use of cannabis. Surveys reveal that lifetime prevalence of cannabis in Holland increased consistently and sharply. For the age group 18-20, the increase is from 15 percent in 1984 to 44 percent in 1996.....

 

[Dutch]

...and The War On Drugs is a flawless and valiant effort to rid the streets of illegal substances. :roll:

Arrests and confiscations are ongoing. What is happening on the "regulation front?"

 

[Dutch]

The rate of use in Germany almost parallels the rate of use in the Netherlands during that period, even though Germany has maintained some of the strictest marijuana laws.

Nice try though!

That's not showing causation. If germany had decriminalized marijuana and then experienced either a rise or fall in use then we'd have something to discuss.

 

[Rassales]

Aw hell, feel free to pile on anytime your want, most of the us does anyway. Now I have this. Mind you you'll pretty much hate the source but it does refer to an increase in usage after decriminalization. Do you have any sources you would like to share that indicate usage went down after decriminalization?


source

The problem isn't the source--but your Justice Department site doesn't cite ITS source, it just makes the claim. And it doesn't define "prevalence of use" (what does that mean? The number of people who've used it once? Those using it regularly? The amount they estimate is sold? Does the number include "drug tourists?" What the heck does it mean?