mjbp, the question is not so much how unhealthy cannabis or other softdrugs are, but whether we should legalise it.

People will use soft drugs whether these are legal or not.

From research studies in the Netherlands, it has been shown that there has not been an increase in cannabis use since it has been legalised.

As discussed in previous posts, legalising it can have many advantages such as more safety and control (hygiene, dosage information etc).
Most importantly, people will not have to buy softdrugs from dealers who also deal in hard drugs, reducing the risk of dealers pushing hard drugs.

Posted by mjpb, Monday, 26 February 2007 11:26:10 AM

“I find comparisons with food allergies surprising. You discover you have a food allergy and you avoid the food. Discover that marijuana has triggered off a psychotic condition and you have the rest of your life to live with a dishability.”

I think that is a little dismissive – quite a few people have died from allergic reaction and many more, myself included, have come very close. As far as I know – no-one has died from cannabis.

With regard to your ‘definitely a first timer’ If this is true it is of major concern and if you know it to be true you must of course act in accordance with that, however I suspect the veracity of your report and for several reasons. Firstly, I have seen many psychotics who smoke cannabis – all of them have come from dysfunctional families, all of them have used many drugs which are many times more powerful than cannabis and all of them have been extremely heavy users. Secondly, since it is illegal, there are other motives for claiming ‘honest officer, this is the first time I ever went over the speed limit…’. Thirdly, I have seen no research to back this up – if you have some please post it. And lastly, your comment that you have never known a regular user who gives a toss about anything, while you simultaneously dialogue with several regular users who obviously care quite a lot, makes me question your judgement on a much more fundamental level. Perhaps it is not so much; the regular users you know as, the people you know?

Cevilia,

In arguing for legalising it someone above compared it with food allergies. Hence my comments.

"...advantages such as more safety and control (hygiene, dosage information etc)."

Are you thinking legalising with the government as pushers as opposed to removing any restrictions and anyone selling it?

"Most importantly, people will not have to buy softdrugs from dealers who also deal in hard drugs, reducing the risk of dealers pushing hard drugs."

I am not much into drugs and have limited experience but dope dealers don't necessarily push "hard" drugs. Do you find that most dope dealers sell "hard" drugs? I guess that would make it extremely important to have the government supply rather than make it easier for such dangerous established distributers to supply it.

Rob,

"I think that is a little dismissive..."

True. Point taken but you have about a one in 2 million chance of dieing from an allergy. From the number of people I have known to have psychiatric illness triggered by marijuana the odds of having a psychotic condition from marijuana usage seem much higher. The British Medical Journal discussed relevant studies: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/325/7374/1183

I still don't think that the comparison is valid as we have to eat food but don't have to smoke and food doesn't leave people with life long psychiatric illnesses. I note that marijuana is often smoked so there must be some level of death from smoking related illnesses resulting. I wonder if the rate is higher than the food deaths. (http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7396/942)

The first timer I'm thinking of was young and from a normal family with apparently no other drug experience. It was in South Australia and I think personal usage was not a criminal offence at the time.

Re: regular users: So you guys are regular users ... Good that you aren't just trying to create problems for others. Yes you don't fit my stereotype. Dope normally seems to demotivate regular users.

The Minister for Water says we should grow cotton in the Murray Darling Basin because its an annual crop, presumably instead of orchard crops like stone fruit and vines that take 7 years to come into production. Vines and orchards were established in the Murray Darling Basin in the 1890s and many now use drip irrigation to the roots of each plant.

Cotton and rice have been grown since the 1970s and use flood irrigation to water the crop. There have been many complaints about the levels of pesticides applied to cotton crops.

We can grow hemp for cloth instead of cotton and reduce our water consumption and need for heavy doses of pesticides. If we grow enough hemp we could use it to make paper ths reducing the demand for wood chip and saving our native forests.

Grass is the green alternative!

That might not be a bad idea, Billie!

MJPB,
Isn't it better to let the government regulate drugs than to have mafia-like groups regulate it?

You are right that dealers in cannabis do not necessarily push ‘hard’ drugs, but there are many who do sell a range of drugs.
A licensed drug dealer would not want to risk her/his reputation and license and time in jail by pushing hard drugs especially not to kids under 18.

What are the reasons for NOT legalising drugs? To make the country drug-free? This will never happen.

The USA’s crime bill (1986) stated that America would be drug-free in 1995. They seriously started the war on drugs. America is hardly drug free today despite large amounts of money spent on the war on drugs.

To not legalise drugs is more damaging than to legalise them. Prohibiting the use of drugs means there is no control on hygiene, causing bigger health risks. There’s no control on price, causing more crime. Not enough police, not enough time in the justice system to be serious about crimes without victims.

Drugs always have been and always will be part of some people’s life

Mjpb: "...about a one in 2 million chance of dieing from an allergy."

Now you are comparing ‘numbers of deaths’ with ‘numbers of severe ramifications’. The numbers of people with severe ramifications from allergies would be in the millions. My point was that just because a substance is potentially dangerous to some people does not mean that it should be banned.

"I still don't think that the comparison is valid as we have to eat food but don't have to smoke..." Yes, but we don’t have to eat 'everything' so there is no reason why certain foods could not be banned and indeed with Mad Cow contaminations, etc, food often is banned.

And as I have said many times before cannabis does not have to be smoked. My preferred option would be available as a drinkable liquid served at pubs and clubs and with the same restrictions that apply to alcohol sales.

"The first timer I'm thinking of was young and from a normal family with apparently no other drug experience."

This does not really satisfactorily address my concerns over this report however even if it is accurate that does still not constitute a reason to ban it. I would like to point out that a v brief purview of something like the Merck Index will show how few drugs actually have no serious side-effects or adverse reactions when taken in excess. It is part and parcel of dealing with all drugs and even with all foods. Prohibition has not solved the problem.

There may indeed be a need to establish some practice for its safe administration, eg perhaps people start with v small doses and work up, or whatever other practice is determined to be safe in assessing suitability. Again, if it was legal there could be more control and education about the dangers. The people I know who have adverse reactions to cannabis, usually paranoia, get the sense v early on that this drug is not for them. Again I think it is important to get it legalized so that its 'mystique' is removed.