I'm for legalizing, growing, taxing and government distribution.

I'm at the coalface and see the results every day. Since idiocy is determined to propagate the notion that marijuana is harmless; we might as well channel some of the money that illegal growers and distributors make off it towards medical, welfare and rehabilitative care for people who want to get free of it. Making it legitimately available and cheap might reduce crime and policing costs.

Every day of care in an acute care unit costs about 1,000 dollars (probably more). Average length of stay might be two weeks - though some are in for months and then need community care as well. But for argument's sake - let's say each episode costs $14,000 just in acute care costs alone (not including the cost to get them there - community workers, community psych or GP, police, ambulance).

"A review of the research on the effect of cannabis on pilots revealed that those who had used cannabis made far more mistakes, both major and minor, than when they had not smoked cannabis.... The worst effects were in the first four hours, although they persisted for at least 24 hours...It concluded "Most of us, with this evidence, would not want to fly with a pilot who had smoked cannabis within the last day or so"

"In New Zealand, researchers found that those who smoked regularly, and had smoked before driving, were more likely to be injured in a car crash. A recent study in France looked at over 10,000 drivers who were involved in fatal car crashes. Even when the influence of alcohol was taken into account, cannabis users were more than twice as likely to be the cause of a fatal crash than to be one of the victims."

Royal College of Psychiatrists:

http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/mentalhealthinfo/problems/alcoholanddrugs/cannabis.aspx

Australian Medical Association:

http://www.ama.com.au/youthhealth/cannabis

Anyone who wants to quibble about the research can take it up with those institutions. I also suggest a visit to your local acute care psychiatric ward and/or to various community services that try to house and care for people who are attempting recovery.

pynchme:"the notion that marijuana is harmless"

No ome has suggested it is harmless. you have a real problem in dealing with shades of grey, don't you? Everything has to be black and white or you simply can't get your head around it. Thus, cannabis must be either "good" or "bad" and it can never be a little "good" or a little bit "bad", byut must be placed in one box or the other in order for you to even think about it. The same sort of need for absolutism comes through in every one of your posts: it's not merely muddled, it's borderline dysfuntional.

Despite your links, the evidence is poor for a correlation between cannabis consumption and driving incidents and non-existent for a causative link. Accidents caused by a driver who has used no other mind-altering substance but marijuana are almost non-existent. Psychiatrists have not been able to show a causative link between cannabis consumption and mental health outcomes. Correlation does not imply causation, despite your own preference for trying to make it so.

I do agree with you that regulation makes sense. At present, most people who want a smoke have to associate, at least indirectly, with organised criminals and they have to pay through the nose to do so. The quality is variable and hence the effects are somewhat unpredictable. It's a bit like buying a bottle of wine and not knowing whether it's going to be port or rose.

Antiseptic: <"Correlation does not imply causation"> I know that you read this somewhere (maybe 20 years ago; the phrase is an old worn one - but you don't seem to realize that) and your constant use of it occurs I suppose because you think it sounds natty. Well it doesn't. It isn't intimidating; I made no claims about research at all.

You however have - and poorly founded comments at that.

As I say, take it up with the Australian Medical Society and the Royal College of Psychiatrists. Apparently, both existing research and the constant spectacle (which I share) of seeing damaged people in inpatient psychiatric units, has led to them adopting a different POV to yours.

All of the justifications for your addiction that you're using were/are used by alcoholics too. There is research on addictions that describes the methods of denial that are employed by people with dependency problems.

One aspect is the insistence on promoting use - like the alcoholic who insists on generously filling everyone else's glass. Then the alcoholic can internally maintain the delusion that they are only a "social drinker". Btw the term "recreational drug user" amuses me. What's the alternative type of drug user? A 'professional drug user'?

In light of the evidence that drivers using mj are impaired; I think that drug testing after accidents should be conducted as a matter of course and people held accountable, just as they are when it's DUI. I think that if we legalize, create an industry for growers, tax it and distribute the product cheaply, that we can then construct legislation that will hold people accountable for the deletrious effects of their choices; while also making more rehabilitation facilities available for people who want a different way of handling the inner sadness or turmoil that they blunt with drug use.

If drugs weren't illegal, what would cops do?

http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0522/largest-marijuana-plant-seizure-police-departments-history-turns-mere-yard-work/

TeeHee

There was a joke in that link:

An old Italian lived alone in New Jersey . He wanted to plant his annual tomato garden, but it was very difficult work, as the ground was hard. His only son, Vincent, who used to help him, was in prison. The old man wrote a letter to his son and described his predicament:

Dear Vincent,
I am feeling pretty sad, because it looks like I won't be able to plant my tomato garden this year. I'm just getting too old to be digging up a garden plot. I know if you were here my troubles would be over. I know you would be happy to dig the plot for me, like in the old days.
Love, Papa

A few days later he received a letter from his son.

Dear Pop,
Don't dig up that garden. That's where the bodies are buried..
Love,
Vinnie

At 4 a.m. the next morning, FBI agents and local police arrived and dug up the entire area without finding any bodies. They apologized to the old man and left.
That same day the old man received another letter from his son.

Dear Pop,
Go ahead and plant the tomatoes now. That's the best I could do under the circumstances.
Love you,
Vinnie

In light of research in Europe indicating the opposite results re pot and driving that you purport Pynchme, it's probably pointless to go on about it and besides this discussion has swayed from the question of civil liberties raised in the original post.

If I may give a example of the type of regulations that seem to work in other European countries, free heroin trials have been so far a great success, and have had the effect of liberating people addicted to heroin from the crime cycle associated with obtaining supply from the black market. Results have seen these people participating in normal life activities, such as having a job etc, instead of climbing in your window and stealing your television set to pay organised criminals exorbitant profits.

I believe civilised and sensible solutions( a bit less hysterical than simple prohibition justified by rabid assumptions ), would see most of your patients do better than they currently are Pynchme. Maybe not even decide to start using drugs in the first place.
Above all, I think public safety should be the fundamental objective of Drug Law.

Alcohol still presents the biggest problem anyway , (not because it legal), but because of the nature of the drug.

Inebriation (an effect particular to alcohol), is the definitive killer behind the wheel of a car, the definitive cause of domestic violence, murder, rape, assault , anti- social behaviour etc. . There is also absolute proof of the destruction of brain cells in long term or even short term or acute alcohol use.

Despite this we don't ban it. I'm not advocating we should, but what's the difference between alcohol and other mind altering/ mood changing substances?. Some peoples attitudes to substances of any kind except alcohol self perpetuate the problem. Alcohol mixed with other drugs can very very bad because inebriation is now part of equation.

Inebriation, not stimulation or sedation or other definition/condition is responsible for more mayhem, death and destruction and accidents in the workplace.