ummmm, because they are legal, and thus much more socially acceptable than the illegal substances.
Give Marijuana legalization tomorrow and about 10 years of use and study and time for people to get comfortable talking about it and you'll see that it can also be a cause of problems on a much more wide scale.
Not saying what it will be as bad or worse as the problems associated with alcohol or tobacco (granted the problems aren't blamed on these substances instead, since most marijuana users also drink and or smoke cigarettes), but you can't compare the two when alcohol and tobacco are widely accepted, as they are legal, and marijuana is not.
In almost every category of drug, and for drug usage overall, the lifetime prevalence rates in the pre-decriminalization era of the 1990s were higher than the post-decriminalization rates.
Since decriminalization, life-time prevalence rates (which measure how many people have consumed a particular drug or drugs over the course of their lifetime) in Portugal have decreased for various age groups. For students in the 7th–9th grades (13–15 years old), the rate decreased from 14.1 percent in 2001 to 10.6 percent in 2006. For those in the 10th–12th grades (16–18 years old), the lifetime prevalence rate, which increased from 14.1 percent in 1995 to 27.6 percent in 2001, the year of decriminalization, has decreased subsequent to decriminalization, to 21.6 percent in 2006. For the same groups, prevalence rates for psychoactive substances have also decreased subsequent to decriminalization.
In fact, for those two critical groups of youth (13–15 years and 16–18 years), prevalence rates have declined for virtually every substance since decriminalization.
The number of people in substitution treatment leapt from 6,040 in 1999 to 14,877 in 2003, an increase of 147%
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.
The Limited Relevance of Drug Policy: Cannabis in Amsterdam and in San Francisco
(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).
Decriminalization of Marijuana and the Demand for Alcohol, Marijuana and Cocaine
(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.
Major publications from the RAND Drug Policy Research Center's
(National Criminal Justice Reference Service)
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.
The impact of cannabis decriminalisation in Australia and the United States
(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.
Cannabis, the Law and Social Impacts in Australia
(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.
PLoS Medicine: Toward a Global View of Alcohol, Tobacco, Cannabis, and Cocaine Use: Findings from the WHO World Mental Health Surveys
(Public Library of Science, World Health Organization)
Ohh rest assured marijuana is widely accepted already.
Drug use has been a component in human social behavior as far back as the anthropological record indicates. People (and animals as well) will go to great lengths to attain an altered state. It is human nature to feel good, and so long as that is a hardwired component of our nature people will continue to seek out and use drugs regardless of its legality. But this is all a tangent.
What we really need to look at is whether or not there will be a significant increase as a result of a relaxation in legal status.
Study after study has shown this not to be the case:
First a few findings from Portugal's 8 year old policy of decriminalization for all drugs:
Drug Decriminalization in Portugal: Lessons for Creating Fair and Successful Drug Policies | Glenn Greenwald | Cato Institute: White Paper
There is plenty more in that document, an excellent read, as are the following studies:
* Many thanks to Binary Digit for building on my collection of studies, and compiling them all in one place. http://www.debatepolitics.com/Death...ng-marijuana-good-society.html#post1058151624
So now, unless someone can provide substantial evidence to refute these studies, it is time to move on and we can discard any arguments that are rooted in the conception that drug laws serve as a significant deterrent to usage, which brings us back to this:
The question you need to be asking is how many have been harmed by the prohibition of drugs, not how many have been harmed by the drugs themselves.
Portugal does not = The United States.
Can't even compare the two. Too far culturally different.
The reason why I state that you can't compare the 'reported' problems associated with each is because in the US you'll have an event happen as a result of drug use and it will get 'reported' as a result of something else, because people fear being labeled as drug users. Thus the statistics on drug use harm and tobacco/alcohol use harm are not even comparable. Statistics are based off of what people are willing to tell you.
The number of [hospital] admissions directly due to marijuana use decreased from ... 1970 to ... 1975. In the same time, the number of admissions for drug abuse of all types, except alcohol, [also] decreased. ... The following conclusion seemwarranted: medically significant problems from the use of marijuana have decreased coincident with decriminalizing marijuana."
- P. Blachly. 1976. Effects of Decriminalization of Marijuana in Oregon. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 282: 405-415
ummmm, because they are legal, and thus much more socially acceptable than the illegal substances.
Give Marijuana legalization tomorrow and about 10 years of use and study and time for people to get comfortable talking about it and you'll see that it can also be a cause of problems on a much more wide scale.
Not saying what it will be as bad or worse as the problems associated with alcohol or tobacco (granted the problems aren't blamed on these substances instead, since most marijuana users also drink and or smoke cigarettes), but you can't compare the two when alcohol and tobacco are widely accepted, as they are legal, and marijuana is not.
How about me make poison ivy illegal in place of marijuana?
That stuff is far more dangerous.
Everyone knows marijuana is more harmful and addictive than tobacco and alcohol, yet we have all of these idiot stoners polluting society with their stupid dope and their liberal pro-drug propaganda.
I believe all non-smokers like me are against legalization because it will just make more people use it and decay our society further. All pot smokers deserve to be thrown in jail because they are a danger to themselves and others.
Got proof of that?
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?