A former government adviser on drugs has told MPs that alcohol consumption would fall by as much as 25% if Dutch-style cannabis "coffee shops" were introduced in Britain.
Nutt told MPs the cost of policing cannabis use was only £500m a year, mainly for issuing possession warning notices, compared with the £6bn a year bill for policing the use of alcohol, including dealing with people who were drunk and disorderly.
His call for the decriminalisation of the use of all drugs was backed by a second former government drug adviser, Prof Lesley King, who told MPs that most people who took ecstasy did so without harming themselves or inflicting wider harms on society.
The two former government drug advisers were giving evidence to the Commons home affairs select committee's inquiry into drugs policy.
Nutt has argued that the harmful impact of removing criminal sanctions on cannabis use would be relatively modest unless it was as actively marketed as alcohol, since almost half of young people already used the drug. He said he had argued in a Lancet paper that alcohol was the most harmful drug in Britain largely because of its frightening contribution to domestic violence, child abuse and road traffic accidents.
"A regulated market for illicit drugs would be the best way and we could reduce alcohol consumption by as much as 25% if we had the Dutch model of cannabis cafes," said Nutt, adding that he believed the police would rather deal with people who were stoned than drunk.
"The drugs trade is the second biggest international trade in the world, after oil, and it is completely unregulated … It is impossible to win the war on drugs."
dæl wrote:"A regulated market for illicit drugs would be the best way and we could reduce alcohol consumption by as much as 25% if we had the Dutch model of cannabis cafes," said Nutt, adding that he believed the police would rather deal with people who were stoned than drunk.
Doesn't that sounds like a bit of a made up number, as it is? I'm all for legalization of light drugs, and it really doesn't have to bring 'good' side effects to be justifiable... The simple fact that it's a personnal liberty should be enough...
What the hell is he basing his figures on.
25%? Convenient figure.
Not saying by the way that it's a bad idea, but come on. At least say it's worth it for the tax revenues and redirection of income into legitimate channels.
I am pretty well agreed that it is impossible to win the war on any noun you choose, though.
LordofHats wrote:Am I the only who sits here and wonders how a bar full of stoners is any different from a bar full of drunks?
There would be far less fights, I think Bill Hicks said something along those lines.
It's probably a lot less damaging to the brain and liver. In fact cannabis when taken with alcohol makes the alcohol cause less damage
Spoiler:
Compounds in cannabis may protect the human brain against alcohol-induced damage, according to clinical trial data published online by the journal Neurotoxicology and Teratology.
Investigators at the University of California at San Diego examined white matter integrity in adolescents with histories of binge drinking and marijuana use.
They reported that binge drinkers (defined as boys who consumed five or more drinks in one sitting, or girls who consumed four or more drinks at one time) showed signs of white matter damage in eight separate regions of the brain.
By contrast, the binge drinkers who also used marijuana experienced less damage in seven out of the eight brain regions.
“Binge drinkers who also use marijuana did not show as consistent a divergence from non-users as did the binge drink-only group,” authors concluded. “[It is] possible that marijuana may have some neuroprotective properties in mitigating alcohol-related oxidative stress or excitotoxic cell death.”
In 2005, researchers at the National Institutes of Mental Health reported that the administration of the non-psychoactive cannabinoid cannabidiol (CBD) reduced alcohol-induced cell death in the hippocampus and etorhinal cortex of the brain in a dose-dependent manner by up to 60 percent. “This study provides the first demonstration of CBD as an in vivo neuroprotectant … in preventing binge ethanol-induced brain injury,” investigators concluded in The Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics.
Commenting on the findings, NORML Deputy Director Paul Armentano said, “Alcohol and cannabis appear to have contrasting effects on the body,” he said. “Ethanol is clearly toxic to healthy and developing cells whereas cannabinoids appear to be relatively non-toxic and possibly even neuroprotective.”
San Diego, CA–(ENEWSPF)
August 27, 2009.
Source: norml.org
Alcohol causes domestic and child abuse that cannabis, I would imagine, would not.
Da Boss wrote:
Not saying by the way that it's a bad idea, but come on. At least say it's worth it for the tax revenues and redirection of income into legitimate channels.
He does say that we would save money on policing both cannabis and alcohol.
And says, "The drugs trade is the second biggest international trade in the world, after oil, and it is completely unregulated"
LordofHats wrote:Am I the only who sits here and wonders how a bar full of stoners is any different from a bar full of drunks?
There would be far less fights, I think Bill Hicks said something along those lines.
It's probably a lot less damaging to the brain and liver. In fact cannabis when taken with alcohol makes the alcohol cause less damage
I know (subjectively) that alcohol is worse than weed (this obviously only apply to my own experience). I am very sensitive to alcohol (I'll be tipsy the second wine touches my tongue) and will feel slowed down for about 2-3 days after. I have put myself through IQ tests both on and off weed, without a single point of difference. I have yet to test myself on alcohol, but I'm sure I'll lose about 10-15 points.
If you can't beat them, allow the safer materials but ban the others.
If we legalize one, why not legalize them all?
It's probably a lot less damaging to the brain and liver.
Liver yes but brain? I'm not sure about that.
Alcohol dementia will make a man cut his own hand in hopes of getting alcohol as an analgesic.
I've yet to meet anyone with 'weed' dementia whose problems were so serious (admittedly schizophrenia isn't cool either)
Because cannabis is by far the safest and most socially prevalent. a large percentage of the population smoke it but don't pay any tax to.
Right, but the majority of the same arguments can be made for the other drugs. Why not bring in more tax?
You could make the case for ecstacy/mdma, but other stuff seem far more damaging.
All drugs are damaging. Its part of the package (this includes cigarettes and alcohol). Ultimately its free will. Yes, getting rid of these would be the better alternative but its impossible.
I'm content to sit back and let people kill themselves all they want.
Because cannabis is by far the safest and most socially prevalent. a large percentage of the population smoke it but don't pay any tax to.
Right, but the majority of the same arguments can be made for the other drugs. Why not bring in more tax?
You could make the case for ecstacy/mdma, but other stuff seem far more damaging.
All drugs are damaging. Its part of the package (this includes cigarettes and alcohol). Ultimately its free will. Yes, getting rid of these would be the better alternative but its impossible.
I'm content to sit back and let people kill themselves all they want.
But ecstacy/weed are only really damaging to the person taking them, addiction to cocaine and morphine are damaging to society.
Because cannabis is by far the safest and most socially prevalent. a large percentage of the population smoke it but don't pay any tax to.
Right, but the majority of the same arguments can be made for the other drugs. Why not bring in more tax?
You could make the case for ecstacy/mdma, but other stuff seem far more damaging.
All drugs are damaging. Its part of the package (this includes cigarettes and alcohol). Ultimately its free will. Yes, getting rid of these would be the better alternative but its impossible.
I'm content to sit back and let people kill themselves all they want.
But ecstacy/weed are only really damaging to the person taking them, addiction to cocaine and morphine are damaging to society.
And of the family that has to deal with someone addicted to ecstacy/weed? Any addiction is inherently damaging to society, the family or the individual (or any combination of the three depending on what it is).
Alcohol is damaging to society. I heard that prohibition didn't go smoothly.
The problem for prohibition was less that alcohol is inescapable and more that the amendment is a picture perfect case of Congress and politicians listening to lobbyists a lot more than they should have. Not many people in the American public wanted alcohol banned, let alone cared when the government tried (heck, the government honestly didn't care).
It's not like our culture has some long standing prohibition against the sauce to reinforce such a law.
Likewise, the reverse is probably true of some drugs. They've been illegal so long, no one cares how harmful they actually are (or harmless-ish?).
I've recently given up a cannabis habbit of four years (to varying degrees of severity), and my alcohol consumption has rocketed...there is some truth to this.
Hence why reducing alcohol consumption by 25% and replacing it with cannabis would be a good thing.
How do you counter a rise in weed consumption?
Your offering a false choice. Weed consumption has little to no bad side effect if its starts after the 20s. Alcohol consumption is damaging at all ages, and in far greater proportion. Hence why, if one is legal, the other should be.
Hence why reducing alcohol consumption by 25% and replacing it with cannabis would be a good thing.
How do you counter a rise in weed consumption?
Your offering a false choice. Weed consumption has little to no bad side effect if its starts after the 20s. Alcohol consumption is damaging at all ages, and in far greater proportion. Hence why, if one is legal, the other should be.
And would everyone who smokes weed take it after they are twenty? Are all the academics in agreement with regards to the side effects?
If one is legal, they should all be, simply because any arguments against allowing the others falls flat.
Kovnik Obama wrote:
Your offering a false choice. Weed consumption has little to no bad side effect if its starts after the 20s. Alcohol consumption is damaging at all ages, and in far greater proportion. Hence why, if one is legal, the other should be.
Well no.
It gives you cancer and respiratory diseases.
It also saps your motiviation and lowers your intelligence.
Alcohol, by contrast, is harmless once it's worn off.
Alcohol, by contrast, is harmless once it's worn off.
Not really. While the liver can regenerate, heavy use is very damaging.
Physically yes.
But I can get drunk and be fine at work tomorrow. Hell to use a very personal example, I've had a few jars tonight watching the match (1-0, wooo). But tomorrow by the time I get to work, I'll be fine.
Compared to weed, if I was high right now, tomorrow I'd be tired all day...I'd be sluggish, slower, making more mistakes, loathe to commit to anything.
And would everyone who smokes weed take it after they are twenty? Are all the academics in agreement with regards to the side effects?
Nah, but they already do smoke it. And it's possible that it would drive kids away. Legal weed would probably see a drop in the price after a while, so illegal dealers would be unable to keep their market at their price. So most pot would be dealt through legal sales point which would be regulated by minimum age sales law. At least in theory...
If one is legal, they should all be, simply because any arguments against allowing the others falls flat.
EXACTLY
Goddamn I love Lincoln's speech at the end of WKUK's War of Independance on Drugs
Well when I gave up after a few days I could do simultaneous equations again, I also learned (smatterings of) Ancient Greek. When I was stoned logical processes were obscured and difficult. Being sober removes the fog.
dæl wrote:
Alcohol, by contrast, is harmless once it's worn off.
And that is complete BS, ever heard of cirrhosis?
Over a period of decades, sure. Doesn't stop you showing up to work.
Testify wrote:
Well no.
It gives you cancer and respiratory diseases.
It also saps your motiviation and lowers your intelligence.
Alcohol, by contrast, is harmless once it's worn off.
I'm a heavy user (everyday for the last 7 years) and my IQ actually jumped 7 points since I started smoking... so...
Testify wrote:
Well no.
It gives you cancer and respiratory diseases.
It also saps your motiviation and lowers your intelligence.
Alcohol, by contrast, is harmless once it's worn off.
I'm a heavy user (everyday for the last 7 years) and my IQ actually jumped 7 points since I started smoking... so...
So give up for a while and marvel at your ability to do complicated sums again.
Seriously, dope makes you stupid and you don't realise until you've given up and a moment comes when you make a logical leap that you realise you wouldn't have made a few days ago.
You also remember things much, much easier, and don't get bored as easily.
Mr Hyena wrote:Anecdotal evidence. It needs to be confirmed in a Journal.
well... it'll take at least another 7 years of heavy smoking to arrive at a similar result.
I was planning on stopping soon...
@testify : lool why would I want to do complicated sums when I'm at home, watching a movie or playing a game? Yes, all drugs affect your consciousness... Coffee makes you faster, weed makes you slower... a time and a place...
And no, dope doesn't make me stupid. I've aced Law school exams on weed. I've written a few essays on weed, and always made the grades. It makes ME slower, not dumber. Not the same thing... Other people might have varying side effects...
Well when I gave up after a few days I could do simultaneous equations again, I also learned (smatterings of) Ancient Greek. When I was stoned logical processes were obscured and difficult. Being sober removes the fog.
Anecdotal evidence is not evidence, or an example of proof.
I could function perfectly fine when I smoked daily, didn't make me any less intelligent.
dæl wrote:
Anecdotal evidence is not evidence, or an example of proof.
I could function perfectly fine when I smoked daily, didn't make me any less intelligent.
Yeah I could function too. I held down several jobs and a social life.
If you're going to base this discussion on empirical evidence of cannabis consumption and use, don't have it. There is virtually none, and what there is is so fuzzy so as to be useless.
It's all very well being high minded over the empirical method but there's plenty of things, like this, where there is simply not enough evidence to make a judgement on.
Kovnik Obama wrote:I'm a heavy user (everyday for the last 7 years) and my IQ actually jumped 7 points since I started smoking... so...
Well you are a philosopher
I don't mean that I gained points of IQ because of the weed. And maybe I would've gained more, just meant that it really 'doesn't make you dumb'. All effects of drugs depend on the set and setting.
dæl wrote:
Anecdotal evidence is not evidence, or an example of proof.
I could function perfectly fine when I smoked daily, didn't make me any less intelligent.
Yeah I could function too. I held down several jobs and a social life.
If you're going to base this discussion on empirical evidence of cannabis consumption and use, don't have it. There is virtually none, and what there is is so fuzzy so as to be useless.
It's all very well being high minded over the empirical method but there's plenty of things, like this, where there is simply not enough evidence to make a judgement on.
Again, total BS. There have been loads of studies into cannabis.
Kovnik Obama wrote:I'm a heavy user (everyday for the last 7 years) and my IQ actually jumped 7 points since I started smoking... so...
Well you are a philosopher
I don't mean that I gained points of IQ because of the weed. And maybe I would've gained more, just meant that it really 'doesn't make you dumb'. All effects of drugs depend on the set and setting.
You regard IQ as a mark of intelligence. Based on that, I find it very hard to believe you have any intelligence at all...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dæl wrote:
Testify wrote:
dæl wrote:
Anecdotal evidence is not evidence, or an example of proof.
I could function perfectly fine when I smoked daily, didn't make me any less intelligent.
Yeah I could function too. I held down several jobs and a social life.
If you're going to base this discussion on empirical evidence of cannabis consumption and use, don't have it. There is virtually none, and what there is is so fuzzy so as to be useless.
It's all very well being high minded over the empirical method but there's plenty of things, like this, where there is simply not enough evidence to make a judgement on.
Again, total BS. There have been loads of studies into cannabis.
A 2001 study published in Neurology concluded that "very heavy use of marijuana is associated with persistent decrements in neurocognitive performance even after 28 days of abstinence."
The strongest evidence regarding cannabis and memory focuses on its non-acute negative effects on short-term and working memory.
Oh hey, I'm right. I shouldn't have to google something to prove that the monged out stoners laughing at bright colours are less intelligent than they otherwise would be...
LordofHats wrote:It is called Intelligence Quotient for a reason. I doubt anyone will claim its an end all be all, but how many geniuses have low IQ's?
Richard Feynman's was only 125. This is about half the average internet philosopher, and considerably lower than every BA idiot I've ever met.
If we are going down the "very heavy" use route then alcohol is far worse.
Excessive alcohol intake is associated with impaired prospective memory. This impaired cognitive ability leads to increased failure to carry out an intended task at a later date, for example, forgetting to lock the door or to post a letter on time. The higher the volume of alcohol consumed and the longer consumed, the more severe the impairments.[93] One of the organs most sensitive to the toxic effects of chronic alcohol consumption is the brain. In France approximately 20% of admissions to mental health facilities are related to alcohol related cognitive impairment, most notably alcohol related dementia. Chronic excessive alcohol intake is also associated with serious cognitive decline and a range of neuropsychiatric complications.
Testify wrote:If you're going to base this discussion on empirical evidence of cannabis consumption and use, don't have it. There is virtually none, and what there is is so fuzzy so as to be useless. It's all very well being high minded over the empirical method but there's plenty of things, like this, where there is simply not enough evidence to make a judgement on.
Wait what, were supposed to use a priori knowledge when discussing marijuana? looool...
dæl wrote:If we are going down the "very heavy" use route then alcohol is far worse.
Excessive alcohol intake is associated with impaired prospective memory. This impaired cognitive ability leads to increased failure to carry out an intended task at a later date, for example, forgetting to lock the door or to post a letter on time. The higher the volume of alcohol consumed and the longer consumed, the more severe the impairments.[93] One of the organs most sensitive to the toxic effects of chronic alcohol consumption is the brain. In France approximately 20% of admissions to mental health facilities are related to alcohol related cognitive impairment, most notably alcohol related dementia. Chronic excessive alcohol intake is also associated with serious cognitive decline and a range of neuropsychiatric complications.
Testify wrote:Richard Feynman's was only 125. This is about half the average internet philosopher, and considerably lower than every BA idiot I've ever met.
Average IQ is 100, and since its a comparative test that scores people by percentages compared to others. Due to score inflation, Feynman would probably actually score higher than 125 were he to take the test today.
Alcohol, by contrast, is harmless once it's worn off.
LordofHats wrote:
Testify wrote:Richard Feynman's was only 125. This is about half the average internet philosopher, and considerably lower than every BA idiot I've ever met.
Testify wrote:Richard Feynman's was only 125. This is about half the average internet philosopher, and considerably lower than every BA idiot I've ever met.
Average IQ is 100, and since its a comparative test that scores people by percentages compared to others. Due to score inflation, Feynman would probably actually score higher than 125 were he to take the test today.
So? He was barely in the top 10% when he took it, hardly a "genius". And I know plenty of people in the top 1% who're bright but hardly "amazing" in the way that people with lower IQs are.
You can't quantify human intelligence beyond very vague notions. It's a gross misunderstanding of what intelligence actually is.
LordofHats wrote:It is called Intelligence Quotient for a reason. I doubt anyone will claim its an end all be all, but how many geniuses have low IQ's?
Richard Feynman's was only 125. This is about half the average internet philosopher, and considerably lower than every BA idiot I've ever met.
Maybe you don't know what scale to use, but 125 is already pretty good. Twice that, and you enter the realm of soon-to-be-mad geniuses... (or actually autistic personnalities)
Yeah, I can quote out of context too. In fact, I'll find a single thing you've said that I can find that's wrong, and use that to claim some over-arching point.
Clearly you're young, and you regard weed as cool. Sometime you'll find out why older people smoke it far less - it makes you lazy and stupid. You'll realise this in time.
Doesn't mean it should be criminalised though.
LordofHats wrote:It is called Intelligence Quotient for a reason. I doubt anyone will claim its an end all be all, but how many geniuses have low IQ's?
Richard Feynman's was only 125. This is about half the average internet philosopher, and considerably lower than every BA idiot I've ever met.
Maybe you don't know what scale to use, but 125 is already pretty good. Twice that, and you enter the realm of soon-to-be-mad geniuses...
LordofHats wrote:It is called Intelligence Quotient for a reason. I doubt anyone will claim its an end all be all, but how many geniuses have low IQ's?
Richard Feynman's was only 125. This is about half the average internet philosopher, and considerably lower than every BA idiot I've ever met.
Maybe you don't know what scale to use, but 125 is already pretty good. Twice that, and you enter the realm of soon-to-be-mad geniuses... (or actually autistic personnalities)
Yeah, I can quote out of context too. In fact, I'll find a single thing you've said that I can find that's wrong, and use that to claim some over-arching point.
Clearly you're young, and you regard weed as cool. Sometime you'll find out why older people smoke it far less - it makes you lazy and stupid. You'll realise this in time.
Doesn't mean it should be criminalised though.
You claimed alcohol was harmless compared to weed, then when I showed otherwise, you said you never said that. I called you up on this, deal with it. And if you can find a quote I then claim to never have said please quote it.
I'm not young, i'm getting on for 30, I smoked weed every day for ten years, I don't anymore except very rarely. That wasn't because it made me stupid, it's because I was somewhat addicted and prices are astronomical.
Yeah, I can quote out of context too. In fact, I'll find a single thing you've said that I can find that's wrong, and use that to claim some over-arching point.
Clearly you're young, and you regard weed as cool. Sometime you'll find out why older people smoke it far less - it makes you lazy and stupid. You'll realise this in time.
Doesn't mean it should be criminalised though.
You claimed alcohol was harmless compared to weed, then when I showed otherwise, you said you never said that. I called you up on this, deal with it. And if you can find a quote I then claim to never have said please quote it.
I was referring to alcohol's impact on your ability to work/perform normal tasks. I stand by what I said. It's easier to work with a hangover than a, for lack of better word, mashover. One can be solved by a nice cup of tea and a cigarette, the other is a cancerous lech that prevents any thought or emotion whatsoever. I don't care about the consequences of 30 years time because I'll be dead. Don't let that stop you from making your own (easily refuted) interpretation of what I've said.
dæl wrote:
I'm not young, i'm getting on for 30, I smoked weed every day for ten years, I don't anymore except very rarely. That wasn't because it made me stupid, it's because I was somewhat addicted and prices are astronomical.
30 is young.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kovnik Obama wrote:
You regard IQ as a mark of intelligence. Based on that, I find it very hard to believe you have any intelligence at all...
It's a good measure if you take the tests with long intervals. I don't see what made you unable to avoid the insult, tho...
I apologise for the insult.
But IQ is nonsense. It has no purpose or use.
Testify wrote:
I was referring to alcohol's impact on your ability to work/perform normal tasks. I stand by what I said. It's easier to work with a hangover than a, for lack of better word, mashover. One can be solved by a nice cup of tea and a cigarette, the other is a cancerous lech that prevents any thought or emotion whatsoever. I don't care about the consequences of 30 years time because I'll be dead. Don't let that stop you from making your own (easily refuted) interpretation of what I've said.
Some hangovers are awful, and a bacon sarnie and a cuppa isn't going to help there. But as I said, in my experience I am far more functional after a night of smoking than a night on the lash.
30 is young.
It's old enough to realise that weed isn't cool, and even if it were it wouldn't matter.
Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal? Why should weed be any different from alcohol in the case that it effects different people differently? Some people can handle their liquor way better than others. I'm willing to be some people can handle the herb a lot better than others too.
Also, hiring processes disagrees with Testify that IQ tests are useless :
According to Frank Schmidt and John Hunter, "for hiring employees without previous experience in the job the most valid predictor of future performance is general mental ability."[67] The validity of IQ as a predictor of job performance is above zero for all work studied to date, but varies with the type of job and across different studies, ranging from 0.2 to 0.6.[68] The correlations were higher when the unreliability of measurement methods were controlled for.[39] While IQ is more strongly correlated with reasoning and less so with motor function,[69] IQ-test scores predict performance ratings in all occupations.[67] That said, for highly qualified activities (research, management) low IQ scores are more likely to be a barrier to adequate performance, whereas for minimally-skilled activities, athletic strength (manual strength, speed, stamina, and coordination) are more likely to influence performance.[67] It is largely mediated through the quicker acquisition of job-relevant knowledge that IQ predicts job performance.
Because cannabis is by far the safest and most socially prevalent. a large percentage of the population smoke it but don't pay any tax to.
Right, but the majority of the same arguments can be made for the other drugs. Why not bring in more tax?
You could make the case for ecstacy/mdma, but other stuff seem far more damaging.
The damage it causes doesn't really matter though. The people who will use it will use it, whether it is legal or not. By keeping it illegal you put all the money in the hands of criminals and increase risk to the user as there is not guarantee of purity.
So keeping it illegal accomplishes nothing but increasing the profits of drug cartels and results in more dead people who injected drain cleaner into their arm when they were trying to get a fix.
dæl wrote:"A regulated market for illicit drugs would be the best way and we could reduce alcohol consumption by as much as 25% if we had the Dutch model of cannabis cafes," said Nutt, adding that he believed the police would rather deal with people who were stoned than drunk.
Doesn't that sounds like a bit of a made up number, as it is? I'm all for legalization of light drugs, and it really doesn't have to bring 'good' side effects to be justifiable... The simple fact that it's a personnal liberty should be enough...
In the eyes of many people, it isn't enough. They want a personal benefit before agreeing to it.
There's a similar issue to gay marriage. It is in some cases hard to get support not because people oppose it, but because for most people it doesn't effect them directly either way. So those who oppose it have far more influence than they would if you based it purely on popular support (the percent of the population that opposes gay marriage has in several polls slipped in to the thirties, while in most polls the percent of the population that supports it is in the fifties).
Sadly, in terms of populism and gathering the vote, personal liberty isn't really that important, at least in the US.
dæl wrote:"A regulated market for illicit drugs would be the best way and we could reduce alcohol consumption by as much as 25% if we had the Dutch model of cannabis cafes," said Nutt, adding that he believed the police would rather deal with people who were stoned than drunk.
Doesn't that sounds like a bit of a made up number, as it is? I'm all for legalization of light drugs, and it really doesn't have to bring 'good' side effects to be justifiable... The simple fact that it's a personnal liberty should be enough...
In the eyes of many people, it isn't enough. They want a personal benefit before agreeing to it.
That's sad. But wouldn't the taxes be the obvious personal benefit?
Taxation is an indirect benefit. We generally don't recognize what our taxes pay for consciously. Most people hear taxes and they think bad. What is being taxed is irrelevant, and how much money it can generate is a hypothetical number to them that means nothing.
LordofHats wrote:Taxation is an indirect benefit. We generally don't recognize what our taxes pay for consciously. Most people hear taxes and they think bad. What is being taxed is irrelevant, and how much money it can generate is a hypothetical number to them that means nothing.
Oh well. I tried.
On a completely unrelated note, I have just realized there's a name for something I've experienced my whole life : Exploding Head Syndrome. It's ridiculously benign, but the name freaks the living out of me.
The proposal makes sense, although 25% is an odd figure. Like everything else involving cannabis legisaltion far too many people have been brainwashed into a 'drugs are bad' mentality after decades of usually baseless stigma for people to listen to reason.
Cannabis, while not benign, is far less dangerous than alcohol (which if introduced today would be a class A drug due to it its servere health risks). The main danager with cannabis is actually rspiratory problems as it is usually smoked.
Criminalising effectively safe drugs is a waste of time, money and resources that also criminalises a whole segment of society.
Da Boss wrote:What the hell is he basing his figures on.
25%? Convenient figure.
Without doing any research at all, he probably directly compared rates of alcohol use in Holland with those in Britain.
LordofHats wrote:Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal? Why should weed be any different from alcohol in the case that it effects different people differently? Some people can handle their liquor way better than others. I'm willing to be some people can handle the herb a lot better than others too.
True, but the people that can't handle their herb don't end up the hospital getting their stomachs pumped (or dead), and THC withdrawal isn't potentially lethal.
People react differently to different drugs, but the negative reactions to pot are nowhere near as severe as the negative reactions to alcohol.
So alcohol goes down by 25% and weed goes up by how much?
Personally I'm not a fan of drinking or smoking and so don't have a stake either way; both are harmful in different ways, in different amounts to different people. The overall indication is still that both are bad for you...
Testify wrote:
Over a period of decades, sure. Doesn't stop you showing up to work.
I see someone has never had a hangover.
Mr Hyena wrote:
If we legalize one, why not legalize them all?
That's an abysmal argument that you should be ashamed for making. You may as well ask "If we acquit one, why not acquit them all?" It presumes either guilt or innocence, which is just about the stupidest thing anyone can do.
Or, inversely, "That alcohol stuff is bad for, and its a liquid, therefore we must make all liquids illegal."
Mr Hyena wrote:
Liver yes but brain? I'm not sure about that.
Really? It is a well documented fact that heavy alcohol use causes brain damage.
Mr Hyena wrote:
If one is legal, they should all be, simply because any arguments against allowing the others falls flat.
Nonsense. Its about net effect on the body and society. Indeed, its been argued that Britain should ban booze because it seems to cause you lot so many social problems.
Mr Hyena wrote:
And that is where it falls flat. Like with pretty much everything.
Well, not really, because that effectively means all proposals for policy lack force; which is just nonsense.
Obviously the actual effect of any given decision cannot be 100% assured, right down to whether or not you're going to die if you take one more step. The point is either that we can arrive at a reasonable level of certainty that a given policy change will either improve conditions, or cause no change.
Da Boss wrote:What the hell is he basing his figures on.
25%? Convenient figure.
Without doing any research at all, he probably directly compared rates of alcohol use in Holland with those in Britain.
It's unlikely, he's a Professor and an ex Drugs advisor to the government (was sacked after saying that horse riding is statistically more dangerous than ecstacy, which is an empirically proven fact btw), and he places a lot of importance on evidence, see his blog for example. Also he did say "up to 25%," it was reported as 25%, and I stuck it in the title to get people's attention, and because I pretty much copied the articles title.
SilverMK2 wrote:So alcohol goes down by 25% and weed goes up by how much?
Who cares, I'd rather have our streets filled with happy, philosophical, hungry people on a saturday night than the aggressive, loud, filling up A&E and police cells crowd we currently have.
dæl wrote:
It's unlikely, he's a Professor and an ex Drugs advisor to the government (was sacked after saying that horse riding is statistically more dangerous than ecstacy, which is an empirically proven fact btw), and he places a lot of importance on evidence, see his blog for example. Also he did say "up to 25%," it was reported as 25%, and I stuck it in the title to get people's attention, and because I pretty much copied the articles title.
Simply being a professor doesn't absolve one from using weak evidence to support an argument, nor does criticizing the lack of evidence in another report indicate that one applies the same standard of evidence to one's own work.
One of the absolute easiest ways to attack something in academia is to cite weak evidence, especially where there is an attempt to establish causality. I know, I've done it myself numerous times.
dogma wrote:
Simply being a professor doesn't absolve one from using weak evidence to support an argument, nor does criticizing the lack of evidence in another report indicate that one applies the same standard of evidence to one's own work.
One of the absolute easiest ways to attack something in academia is to cite weak evidence, especially where there is an attempt to establish causality. I know, I've done it myself numerous times.
Absolutely everything I've heard from him has been backed up with evidence, one doesn't become Head of a Department at one of the top ten Universities in the country (Imperial College London), and probably one of the best in the world in your field, by making arguments based on faulty or incomplete evidence.
dæl wrote:If we are going down the "very heavy" use route then alcohol is far worse.
Excessive alcohol intake is associated with impaired prospective memory. This impaired cognitive ability leads to increased failure to carry out an intended task at a later date, for example, forgetting to lock the door or to post a letter on time. The higher the volume of alcohol consumed and the longer consumed, the more severe the impairments.[93] One of the organs most sensitive to the toxic effects of chronic alcohol consumption is the brain. In France approximately 20% of admissions to mental health facilities are related to alcohol related cognitive impairment, most notably alcohol related dementia. Chronic excessive alcohol intake is also associated with serious cognitive decline and a range of neuropsychiatric complications.
dæl wrote:
Who cares, I'd rather have our streets filled with happy, philosophical, hungry people on a saturday night than the aggressive, loud, filling up A&E and police cells crowd we currently have.
Well, I do for one. I already get more than enough 2nd hand smoke from regular fags (and the odd bit of weed every now and again) just walking around - don't particularly want more, and I certainly don't want to have 2nd hand smoke that could cause me to get fined/etc if I live/work/etc near a pot den and then get pulled over by the police for driving under the influence.
So yeah, alcohol may go down 25% but will pot smoiking rise by the same amount? Or more? Or less? I already have to practically wade through cigarette ends and smokers to get into some buildings (and even places it is illegal to smoke, shock horror) - don't particularly want to get high whilst doing it...
You're not going to get high walking through a cloud of pot smoke, plus the rules governing consumption outdoors would probably be similar to those for booze, i.e. a fine if you get caught using on the street.
dæl wrote: Who cares, I'd rather have our streets filled with happy, philosophical, hungry people on a saturday night than the aggressive, loud, filling up A&E and police cells crowd we currently have.
Well, I do for one. I already get more than enough 2nd hand smoke from regular fags (and the odd bit of weed every now and again) just walking around - don't particularly want more, and I certainly don't want to have 2nd hand smoke that could cause me to get fined/etc if I live/work/etc near a pot den and then get pulled over by the police for driving under the influence.
So yeah, alcohol may go down 25% but will pot smoiking rise by the same amount? Or more? Or less? I already have to practically wade through cigarette ends and smokers to get into some buildings (and even places it is illegal to smoke, shock horror) - don't particularly want to get high whilst doing it...
Well the cafes the prof. proposed wouldn't have people smoking outside, but you would rather the domestic abuse, car accidents, overstretched NHS, brawling and other social problems so long as you dont have to wade through cigarette ends? Which is stupid anyway, because there would be ZERO chance that would happen. But cheers for your opinion, the "I'm all right jack" attitude never gets enough airing. What do you actually want, is other people being allowed to live their lives not enough? How about lower taxes/better services? Less violent crime? Being able to go to hospital on the weekend?
It is believed that after an initial spike then use would stay at the rate it is used now.
Well, I'm gald to report the fines for smoking in places where it is illegal mean that no one smokes, for example, in the bus station that I pass through twice a day and usually have to dodge past people puffing away and walk over what sometimes feels like a literal carpet of cigarette ends... Hell, there are even empty and part empty cans of booze all over the place too...
SilverMK2 wrote:Well, I'm gald to report the fines for smoking in places where it is illegal mean that no one smokes, for example, in the bus station that I pass through twice a day and usually have to dodge past people puffing away and walk over what sometimes feels like a literal carpet of cigarette ends... Hell, there are even empty and part empty cans of booze all over the place too...
That's not my experience. Wait... You're in Stockport, aren't you?
SilverMK2 wrote:Well, I'm gald to report the fines for smoking in places where it is illegal mean that no one smokes, for example, in the bus station that I pass through twice a day and usually have to dodge past people puffing away and walk over what sometimes feels like a literal carpet of cigarette ends... Hell, there are even empty and part empty cans of booze all over the place too...
At least the fines for littering are working...
I offer you less tax, violent crime, hospital waiting times, domestic abuse, police expenditure and you come back with "look at all this litter" and "people smoke at bus stops." I worry about some people. It would still be illegal to smoke in the street, of course it would.
That's an abysmal argument that you should be ashamed for making. You may as well ask "If we acquit one, why not acquit them all?" It presumes either guilt or innocence, which is just about the stupidest thing anyone can do.
Or, inversely, "That alcohol stuff is bad for, and its a liquid, therefore we must make all liquids illegal."
They all have the same criteria. They affect the individual and society. We acknowledge that we cannot stop weed distribution illegally. The same can be said for other drugs. The best thing to reduce funds eaten up by the war on drugs is to legalise all illegal drugs.
I'm not opposed to legalising crystal meth.
I offer you less tax, violent crime, hospital waiting times, domestic abuse, police expenditure and you come back with "look at all this litter" and "people smoke at bus stops." I worry about some people. It would still be illegal to smoke in the street, of course it would.
Don't count your chickens before they hatch. I doubt it will go as smoothly.
I offer you less tax, violent crime, hospital waiting times, domestic abuse, police expenditure and you come back with "look at all this litter" and "people smoke at bus stops." I worry about some people. It would still be illegal to smoke in the street, of course it would.
Don't count your chickens before they hatch. I doubt it will go as smoothly.
You reduce alcohol consumption by anything close to 25% and all of those problems are lessened considerably.
No, I just ask what kind of rise pot smoking is expextedto get and whether the cut in booze drinking (and related benefits) will offsetthe downsides associated with pot, some minor ones I have posted about, and which you seem to think that because I have raised them (being rather obvious problems that can't really be argued against existing even if they are minor when compared to cancer, memory loss and other damage and problems) they are the only things I care about - those that impact on me because I am representing some 'silent majority of alright jacks'...
And I'm still to hear just what kind of increase in pot smoking we are supposed to expect... And whether that is better for the country as a whole than having 25% more drinkers than we could have...
SilverMK2 wrote:No, I just ask what kind of rise pot smoking is expextedto get and whether the cut in booze drinking (and related benefits) will offsetthe downsides associated with pot, some minor ones I have posted about, and which you seem to think that because I have raised them (being rather obvious problems that can't really be argued against existing even if they are minor when compared to cancer, memory loss and other damage and problems) they are the only things I care about - those that impact on me because I am representing some 'silent majority of alright jacks'...
And I'm still to hear just what kind of increase in pot smoking we are supposed to expect... And whether that is better for the country as a whole than having 25% more drinkers than we could have...
Tbh you just sound a bit whingy talking about littering, a problem which has nothing to do with the legalisation of cannabis, and if you've ever walked past a kebab shop on a sunday morning you might well see the silliness of raising the point when comparing cannabis to alcohol. Melissa raised the excellent point earlier that's its those whose self interest isn't immediately served who hold back progress. Surely the fact you'd be able to use a hospital on the weekend would be pretty damn useful.
Perhaps you should read the thread and the article to see what benefits are on the cards, and my post earlier on expected usage rates.
I'm posting on my phone, so am somewhat limited in how much I can type (given it takes so long) and also on what I can read as my reception is quite low.
My posts were coming from the other side of the argument given there are those who seem not to want to accept there are downsides to weed both in the short and long term, and also that just because there are laws on where and when things can be done, doesn't mean they will be obeyed. After all people smoke weed already don't they? And litter? And smoke in places that are supposed to be smoke free?
And working in a hospital, where you save on patients coming in to one area, you just shift them onto some other service, either now or with some lag.
You work in a hospital!? Then surely you can see the detriment that alcohol misuse is to our society. Noone is claiming that weed would be without a downside, just that if people reduce their alcohol consumption the upside would far outweigh it.
You don't see much smoking weed in the street currently do you? It does happen but it's quite rare. There is nothing to suggest that providing people a place to smoke it would increase this, quite the opposite in fact. You would reduce the "gateway drug" position that weed currently has as well.
I don't see the problem with weed. In my experience, it's a peaceful drug that doesn't do much harm, except for the tobacco with which you roll a spliff. Blunts aren't that dangerous too. It's just a goddamned plant, nothing synthetic about it. Eating vegetables doesn't harm us either does it?
And it's true, alcohol gets people aggressive. Weed is the better option.
But legalizing it... If we are to buy our weed in coffeeshops, we are going to pay more for our weed. Here in Belgium it's cheaper to buy weed on the streets. Plus, buying a big amount, then dealers often give more then what you pay for. That's a good bonus. Coffeeshops don't do such deals.
True legalizing weed is good for the crime ratings to get down. But less people will buy it. If you grow your own weed, you can amplify the effects of it by adding various things to it.
Legalizing it or not, It won't make any difference for me.
Yes, I can see what alcohol can do to people and the cost it has and trying to reduce the peoblem is important - I've not said that isn't the case. What I am saying is that does the rise in pot use effectively cancel out much of the benefit of reduced alcohol use? And also what kind of facts and figures are there to support this either way?
Regards smoking outside - no, it is not particularly common even around here, but it does happen every now and then, same with drinking. Again, I've not seen any particular figures on whether pot smoking in the street would increase post making it legal, but my personal feeling would be people would be far more open to the idea of 'pushing the limits' and smoking wherever they wanted. Personal veiw, so would welcome correction if studies exist.
The various gateway drug studies sometimes throw up some strange results and like any sociological study it can be very hard to put into context. Having regulated places to smoke pot may protect some users from pushers but will the potential extra exposure of people to drugs just mean that more people fall off the wagon?
I don't particularly want to return to a time where you could send heroin to our boys on the front lines just by buying it in the chemists (don't want to make a slippey slope argument here, just an interesting and possibly entertaining aside)
Scrazza wrote:From what I've read, Weed is not harmful in any way. Not sure about the intelligence loss, but Weeds gets you a hell of lot more creative.
EDIT: Damnit.
That's not strictly true, smoking things causes respiratory disease and cancer, high levels of THC (which are strictly regulated in Holland) can trigger underlying psychological issues, and it can also be psychologically addictive (but then everything can).
Scrazza wrote:From what I've read, Weed is not harmful in any way. Not sure about the intelligence loss, but Weeds gets you a hell of lot more creative.
EDIT: Damnit.
That's not strictly true, smoking things causes respiratory disease and cancer, high levels of THC (which are strictly regulated in Holland) can trigger underlying psychological issues, and it can also be psychologically addictive (but then everything can).
Yes, everything can. And in most cases, the only thing that is harmful in a spliff, is the tobacco you put in with it. Unless you roll a blunt I suppose. I'm not saying it's not harmful, I'm saying that the tobacco is more harmful than the weed you put in.
dæl wrote:
Absolutely everything I've heard from him has been backed up with evidence, one doesn't become Head of a Department at one of the top ten Universities in the country (Imperial College London), and probably one of the best in the world in your field, by making arguments based on faulty or incomplete evidence.
Sure you do, people do it all the time, they just don't do it in accredited journals; you should read some of the stuff put out in work for popular consumption by otherwise eminent scholars. And, seeing as Parliament isn't an accredited journal...
Never assume that because someone has done good work in the past that they are doing good work now, or that everything they say is based on good work. If you're doing that then you're doing their job for them.
Mr Hyena wrote:
They all have the same criteria. They affect the individual and society. We acknowledge that we cannot stop weed distribution illegally. The same can be said for other drugs. The best thing to reduce funds eaten up by the war on drugs is to legalise all illegal drugs.
I'm not opposed to legalising crystal meth.
They may all have the same criteria, but they fulfill those criteria in different ways and to different degrees. Don't mistake categorical comparability for equivalence in terms of fulfilling the criteria necessary for that category.
Moreover, simply reducing the amount spent on the war on drugs isn't the end goal, the end goal is reducing the amount spent by the government as a whole, which may well increase if all illicit substances are legalized.
People commit robbery looking for that next meth fix, they generally don't do it looking for that next joint.
Frazzled wrote:YELLOW CAKE...IN...SPAAAAAAAACE!
What? Those commie space bastards are making nukes!?!
dogma wrote:Never assume that because someone has done good work in the past that they are doing good work now, or that everything they say is based on good work. If you're doing that then you're doing their job for them.
Just don't say it to George Saliba's face. He'll find some ancient Islamic folk tale that proves your wrong
What? Those commie space bastards are making nukes!?!
To be clear although funny you put "Yellow" in and then responded, in case anyone thinks I started that. Funny though. Does this mean we have to launch Operation Space Freedom?
Mr Hyena wrote:
They all have the same criteria. They affect the individual and society. We acknowledge that we cannot stop weed distribution illegally. The same can be said for other drugs. The best thing to reduce funds eaten up by the war on drugs is to legalise all illegal drugs.
I'm not opposed to legalising crystal meth.
Substances are often deemed too dangerous to remain in free circulation. Radioactive dust 'affect individuals and society' in the same (incredibly large) way you describe drugs. But since there's not many uses for it that doesn't involve a great risk for someone, it's deemed illegal. That's as clear a criteria then the one that makes cough sirup legal and nerve gas illegal.
Simple test really : Is there any chance you'll end up eating your gilfriends face while in drug-induced dementia? No? Then it should be legal.
(Or Stupid... OR Drunk AND Stupid!)
out of me. 
