Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

To enlarge on that point, I don't think any drugs are a really great idea. Even coffee can give you the jitters.

However historical evidence suggests that people have always taken drugs and will not stop taking drugs however hard they are prohibited.

Prohibition creates a market which is lucrative because it is illegal. By criminalising what is actually fairly normal human behaviour causes social damage in a number of ways.

In the spirit of reducing the harmful effects on society and the individual, it may be better to permit drug use under reasonable legal restrictions. This would of course require careful study and preparation of the appropriate laws and social conditions.

I don't entirely agree with that. People have been smoking things for thousands of years, sure, but smoking cigarettes has been dying culturally for years. It used to be fairly normal for everyone past the age of 12 to smoke, now the simple act of smoking, though legal, is socially less favorable, and can downright make certain people avoid you. If it were made fully illegal, the fight would be over whether the government has the right to do so, not whether we should smoke or not.( that may be simply because of American attitudes) Making something like pot legal may not do anything at all, beyond making foreign drug cartels more money unless Americans start growing there own.

Furthermore, quite a few things are banned for everyones own good. Class 1 drugs, to use the FDA's scale, are highly addictive, dangerous, and provide no medical benefits. People abuse these, sure, and they are illegal. Unbanning them will not make them used less or lessen any illicit market activity.

Unbanning of drugs to lessen "harmful societal effects" is much more complicated than it is made out to be.

Not all class 1 drugs are created equal.

Making something illegal means that only criminals can sell it. This drives up prices and creates a market in which murder and theft are common business practices for dealing in that thing. For most things, having them be legal, but regulated and taxed, is a win/win from both the crime and cost standpoints.

Yes, I don't disagree, but I don't see that as the whole of possibilities here. Something that is made illegal is usually done so because it is perceived as harmful or otherwise undesireable by a good number of the population( or those in power at least). If people want the use of something to stop, it is entirely possible that it can happen culturally, with or without a legislative side of the issue.

The reduction in smoking cigarettes is a good example (as is drunk driving) of how a sensible programme of information and moderate law has turned around a social trend. I doubt it would have worked simply to ban tobacco in the same way that cannabis is banned, and probably wouldn't work even now since too large a proportion of the population smoke.

Unbanning illegal drugs would lessen illicit market activity because pharmaceutical companies would be able to sell drugs under proper licence. It is the illegality of drugs, combined with their desireability, that produces the very high profits that encourage criminal channels. (See Prohibition.)

I agree with you that these issues are very complex. Partly because they are surrounded by conflicting cultural attitudes and legal legacies. We have to deal with the situation we are in now, rather than the one that existed 100 years ago.

At the moment we are having an argument in the UK about Cannabis and Ecstasy.

The government set up an expert working group to study these drugs and make recommendations on medical and legal grounds about how they should be treated. The expert committee recommended that Cannabis should be kept a Class C drug and Extasy should be downgraded from A to B. (A is for Heroin and so on.)

However the government increased Cannabis to B and looks likely to keep Ecstasy as class A. This is not justified by the reality of the drugs' potential for harm, but it satisfies popular opinion.

But would un-banning cannabis make illegal growers disappear? How would the violent, illegal element react to this? Would they become even more violent to control trade on a local level?
I wonder because it isn't quite the same situation as prohibition. There was a legitimate business side, where honest people made money which was made illegal. Then you had predators who took advantage of the situation and perpeutated illegal business. I'm not entirely sure what happened to them after prohibition(not a history buff). It's my understanding that many were killed in open war with law enforcement.

Now something like weed, for example, has never had a large scale, legal market in the United States. How would that affect the "predator"s behaviour were it made legal? Would there really be a new market, or would thugs and other undesireables still hold control of it?

It was commonly used in the US in the 19th century and widely used in the first part of the 20th.

http://www.a1b2c3.com/drugs/mj005.htm

I definitely think it's worth reading on what happened with alcohol during and after prohibition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States#Repeal

Ragnar again we agree to an extent. I'd posit the real heavy stuff (crack, heroin, Hersheys chocolate) is in a completely different league and has completely different effects regardless of whether legal or not.

Cannabis is so easy to grow anyone could do it for themselves if they were allowed to. Thugs would find it impossible to control the trade of cannabis when Aunty May could grow it in a window box or just buy it from the supermarket.

Well organised growers who are currently illegal would be able to go legit and probably find a good local market because their expertise would give them a competitive advantage.

I suppose some of them might want to bust up farmers' weekend markets or something like that. I don't know if such attempts would work once legal cannabis sellers had the same protection from the police that off licences and tobacconists have now. Alternatively, the hardcore crims might switch to trading other drugs which would still be illegal. It's pretty easy to cook up crystal meth or amphetamines with a bit of chemistry knowledge.

I don't claim to know about all this stuff. Older and wiser heads than mine would have to consider all angles of the issue.

I know in the US weed farming is a major cash crop Kentucky and the other Tennessee valley states (old moonshining states). As I alsways say Weed, Southern Comfort Whiskey, and crystal meth. Made in America, by Americans, for Americans

Frazzled wrote:Ragnar again we agree to an extent. I'd posit the real heavy stuff (crack, heroin, Hersheys chocolate) is in a completely different league and has completely different effects regardless of whether legal or not.

Can't disagree too much here. Heroin is deh debil. Cocaine's a little tougher. It's certainly worse than pot, though (while my addictions and chemical dependency classes are somewhat foggy memories now) not as bad as heroin.

Don't forget hershey's chocolate. Talk about a habit you can never ever kick...

Ah thanks for the links. Never realized that I didn't know what ultimately happened to the truly criminal involved in prohibition until a couple of hours ago.

But what do you mean that class 1 drugs aren't made equal? Are they not classed together because of particular shared characteristics, regardless of source? It's been a few years since my pharm tech classes, but aren't most narcotics class 2 or 3, usually more risky but with accepted medical uses? Doesn't cannabis fall into 2?

Is there a standard scientific definition of Class 1 (Class A) drugs?

I thought it was essentially a legislative convenience. That is, drugs classed A carry the highest penalties, unrelated to their clinical effects.

It's a legal construct, which, as is dramatically demonstrated by cannabis and heroin, is not really based on medical fact.

That's the point about the expert reports on Ecstacy and Cannabis. The science opinion says don't worry, they're not that bad, but the Daily Mail is all OMGWTF!!11! Drugs==End of Civilisation.

Well, not chemical or medical fact really. Its a classification of observable results, namely likelyhood to cause addiction, the potential lethality of the drug(or its side-effects) and whether it has an accepted medical use or not. As Mannahnin says, its mostly a legal construct that decisions are made around and is open to interpretation or revision.

Tha's the thing.

Extensive medical studies have concluded that cannabis is not physically addictive, less physically dangerous than alcohol or tobacco, and is an extremely useful drug for treatment of nausea (extremely helpful to cancer patients), among other things.

And yet it continues to be classified as "highly addictive, dangerous, and provide no medical benefits", in defiance of medical fact.

It's pretty awful policy, actually, as it has serious consequences in the lives of people who are no threat or harm to society. And of course, wastes billions of tax dollars on enforcement, trials, prisons, etc. It's shameful.

It wouldn't be government if it t'wernt shameful.

But I think part of it is that society wants to prevent the spread of what we see as concurrent behaviour with smoking weed. You know the guy, I know a few, that have basically given up on their lives, wallow in self-pity, and use weed to escape the world. Now the drug itself may not be a cause in this place, unless people that are introduced to weed by such individuals without knowing about those that use it for other reasons, and becoming sort of subverted into the behaviour by peer pressure. Drug culture, if you will. So whether it is a direct cause or not, the cannabis gets banned. Same thing with alcohol. You can't ban people throwing their lives away, but you don't want such behaviour to become more common, so you ban things that are associated with the behaviour and hope for culture to go along.

Railguns wrote:Well, not chemical or medical fact really. Its a classification of observable results, namely likelyhood to cause addiction, the potential lethality of the drug(or its side-effects) and whether it has an accepted medical use or not. As Mannahnin says, its mostly a legal construct that decisions are made around and is open to interpretation or revision.

Weed was made illegal due to three things; Mormons, Mexicans and negros. There is no rational reason why alcohol is legal while weed is not. Tax it, sell it...our country could use the money (and good vibes).

Remember kids;

"Marijuana makes Negroes eat other Negroes when they get the munchies."

I was going to put the same argument in a much less pithy and elegant way.

Furthermore, cannabis was made illegal in most of the rest of the world because the USA pushed for it in international conferences.

It's worth pointing out one of the chief architects on the War on Drugs was Joe Biden.

The illegality of weed is skewed by the many vested interest of large companies.

The paper and chemical industry don't want it grown and used extensively as it would challenge their dominance, whilst the Pharmaceutical industry is very keen to develop a synthetic equivalent of THC ( the active bit that gives you the buzz) so they can patent it and makes millions

Few other points :
HISTORY FACTS

*Hemp has been grown for at least the last 12,000 years for fiber (textiles and paper) and food. It has been effectively prohibited in the United States since the 1950s.

*George Washington and Thomas Jefferson both grew hemp. Ben Franklin owned a mill that made hemp paper. Jefferson drafted the Declaration of Independence on hemp paper.

*When US sources of "Manila hemp" (not true hemp) was cut off by the Japanese in WWII, the US Army and US Department of Agriculture promoted the "Hemp for Victory" campaign to grow hemp in the US.

*Because of its importance for sails (the word "canvass" is rooted in "cannabis") and rope for ships, hemp was a required crop in the American colonies.



INDUSTRY FACTS

*Henry Ford experimented with hemp to build car bodies. He wanted to build and fuel cars from farm products.

*BMW is experimenting with hemp materials in automobiles as part of an effort to make cars more recyclable.

*Much of the bird seed sold in the US has hemp seed (it's sterilized before importation), the hulls of which contain about 25% protein.

*Hemp oil once greased machines. Most paints, resins, shellacs, and varnishes used to be made out of linseed (from flax) and hemp oils.

*Rudolph Diesel designed his engine to run on hemp oil.

*Kimberly Clark (on the Fortune 500) has a mill in France which produces hemp paper preferred for bibles because it lasts a very long time and doesn't yellow.

*Construction products such as medium density fiber board, oriented strand board, and even beams, studs and posts could be made out of hemp. Because of hemp's long fibers, the products will be stronger and/or lighter than those made from wood.

*The products that can be made from hemp number over 25,000.



SCIENTIFIC FACTS

*Industrial hemp and marijuana are both classified by taxonomists as Cannabis sativa, a species with hundreds of varieties. C. sativa is a member of the mulberry family. Industrial hemp is bred to maximize fiber, seed and/or oil, while marijuana varieties seek to maximize THC (delta 9 tetrahydrocannabinol, the primary psychoactive ingredient in marijuana).

*While industrial hemp and marijuana may look somewhat alike to an untrained eye, an easily trained eye can easily distinguish the difference.

*Industrial hemp has a THC content of between 0.05 and 1%. Marijuana has a THC content of 3% to 20%. To receive a standard psychoactive dose would require a person to power-smoke 10-12 hemp cigarettes over an extremely short period of time. The large volume and high temperature of vapor, gas and smoke would be almost impossible for a person to withstand.

*If hemp does pollinate any nearby marijuana, genetically, the result will always be lower-THC marijuana, not higher-THC hemp. If hemp is grown outdoors, marijuana will not be grown close by to avoid producing lower-grade marijuana.

*Hemp fibers are longer, stronger, more absorbent and more mildew-resistant than cotton.

*Fabrics made of at least one-half hemp block the sun's UV rays more effectively than other fabrics.

*Many of the varieties of hemp that were grown in North America have been lost. Seed banks weren't maintained. New genetic breeding will be necessary using both foreign and domestic "ditchweed," strains of hemp that went feral after cultivation ended. Various state national guard units often spend their weekends trying to eradicate this hemp, in the mistaken belief they are helping stop drug use.

*A 1938 Popular Mechanics described hemp as a "New Billion Dollar Crop." That's back when a billion was real money.

*Hemp can be made in to a variety of fabrics, including linen quality.



LEGAL FACTS

*The US Drug Enforcement Agency classifies all C. sativa varieties as "marijuana." While it is theoretically possible to get permission from the government to grow hemp, DEA would require that the field be secured by fence, razor wire, dogs, guards, and lights, making it cost-prohibitive.

*The US State Department must certify each year that a foreign nation is cooperating in the war on drugs. The European Union subsidizes its farmers to grow industrial hemp. Those nations are not on this list, because the State Department can tell the difference between hemp and marijuana.

*Hemp was grown commercially (with increasing governmental interference) in the United States until the 1950s. It was doomed by the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937, which placed an extremely high tax on marijuana and made it effectively impossible to grow industrial hemp. While Congress expressly expected the continued production of industrial hemp, the Federal Bureau of Narcotics lumped industrial hemp with marijuana, as it's successor the US Drug Enforcement Administration, does to this day.

*Over 30 industrialized democracies do distinguish hemp from marijuana. International treaties regarding marijuana make an exception for industrial hemp.

*Canada now again allows the growing of hemp.



ECOLOGY FACTS

* Hemp growers can not hide marijuana plants in their fields. Marijuana is grown widely spaced to maximize leaves. Hemp is grown in tightly-spaced rows to maximize stalk and is usually harvested before it goes to seed.

*Hemp can be made into fine quality paper. The long fibers in hemp allow such paper to be recycled several times more than wood-based paper.

*Because of its low lignin content, hemp can be pulped using less chemicals than with wood. Its natural brightness can obviate the need to use chlorine bleach, which means no extremely toxic dioxin being dumped into streams. A kinder and gentler chemistry using hydrogen peroxide rather than chlorine dixoide is possible with hemp fibers.

*Hemp grows well in a variety of climates and soil types. It is naturally resistant to most pests, precluding the need for pesticides. It grows tightly spaced, out-competing any weeds, so herbicides are not necessary. It also leaves a weed-free field for a following crop.

*Hemp can displace cotton which is usually grown with massive amounts of chemicals harmful to people and the environment. 50% of all the world's pesticides are sprayed on cotton.

*Hemp can displace wood fiber and save forests for watershed, wildlife habitat, recreation and oxygen production, carbon sequestration (reduces global warming), and other values.

*Hemp can yield 3-8 dry tons of fiber per acre. This is four times what an average forest can yield.



HEALTH FACTS

*If one tried to ingest enough industrial hemp to get 'a buzz', it would be the equivalent of taking 2-3 doses of a high-fiber laxative.

*At a volume level of 81%, hemp oil is the richest known source of polyunsaturated essential fatty acids (the "good" fats). It's quite high in some essential amino acids, including gamma linoleic acid (GLA), a very rare nutrient also found in mother's milk.

*While the original "gruel" was made of hemp seed meal, hemp oil and seed can be made into tasty and nutritional products.



Prepared by the North American Industrial Hemp Council, October 1997

Oh, Gensis 1:12

King James Bible
And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good

For once, QFT.

sebster wrote:It's worth pointing out one of the chief architects on the War on Drugs was Joe Biden.

The War on Drugs started in the early 20th century.

Hemp is irrelevant. I have nylon rope that treats Hemp like Cartman treats Hippies!

Pardon the pun but thats a smoke screen BS argument that no one, no one cares about. Make weed liegal or illegal on its own merits.

JF, that’s a pretty disrespectful and insulting response.

Hemp is a separate issue from Marijuana, and legitimately stands on its own merits. It’s an extremely useful plant, whose cultivation is made virtually impossible in this country due to wrongheaded, science-ignorant laws. What about it do you think is a "BS argument"?

Just because a lot of potheads do wind up being hemp advocates too doesn’t make it a “smokescreen.”

Its meant to be disrespectful, to Hemp! My awesome nylon and higher end syntehtic ropes laugh at Hemp rope. I hear them in the garage, snickering as we speak. Snicker snicker

It is a smoke screen...get it? Come on its Friday Ragnar, smile or my synthetic material ropage will taunt you a second time!

..er I care.

..Oh, hang on, I'm a no one.

No offence taken btw.

Good sidestep again though, you should try out out for one of the reality dancing shows.

Sorry JF, I wore out my laugher last night watching McCain and Obama's speeches. Now *that* was good stuff.

There is a scene from the Shakespearean drama best Little Whorehouse in Texas where the state governor does a dance routine called "I love to do the sidestep"
Loved that bit.