Legalization of Marijuana

joefromchicago wrote:

Depends on how you define "deaths due to overuse of marijuana."

well, let's take a look at a reasonably recent government study

SAMSHA study - p.31

marijuana only - deaths - total - 0

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Data which showed direct and material harm to users. Data which showed direct and material harm to those who are around the users. I have been unable to locate said data.

Well, maybe it's because you haven't been looking hard enough.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Latin Americans, as in 'citizens of the US who come from Latin descent. Latin Americans make up a hefty percentage of the American population. They brought their culture with them. It is now a part of our culture. And their traditions deserved to be treated with the same amount of cultural respect as anglo-saxon ones.

If you believe that everyone who comes to the United States automatically qualifies his or her own cultural background as "American culture" due to some sort of "melting pot exception," then you're right: Latin American culture is now part of our culture. Of course, the Egyptian immigrant whose cultural heritage includes female genital mutilation would also be following "American culture" when he mutilated his daughter, just as the Pakistani immigrant whose cultural heritage includes honor killings would also be following "American culture" when he killed his daughter. For my part, I don't agree with that definition of "culture," and I'm certainly glad that I don't have to try to defend it with a straight face.

As I pointed out to Cyloptichorn above, if harm to the users was the only harm that we were concerned with, then I'd be impressed with such statistics.

You are Appealing to Extremes, which is bad form.

In what way can it be shown that marijuana increases the risk of harming others than the user? I have seen no data - and please don't trot out the 'maybe it's because you haven't been looking hard enough' line. I've been studying this issue for years, and have found nothing of the sort. You seem to propose that there is in fact a potential harm to others, but you have neither pointed out what that harm would be, nor provided any sort of data which leads you to believe that there would in fact be harm.

joefromchicago wrote:

As I pointed out to Cyloptichorn above, if harm to the users was the only harm that we were concerned with, then I'd be impressed with such statistics.

What other harm have you identified?

I think I can reasonably conclude that marijuana is also as harmful to others, but no more harmful, as alcohol usage.

woiyo wrote:

I would agree with you if there was consistant policies in this regard. Govt "regulates" private behavior in some cases by taxing the product (Booze and tabacco). Some products are illegal (pot, heroin etc...).

While some drugs, both legal and illegal, alter behavior (anti-depressents/pain killers for example), who and how does one MEASURE the potential for harm to the general public?

The same way that we, in a democratic society, measure the potential for harm of any substance or activity: through the process of passing legislation. Granted, that may be an imperfect way of evaluating risk, but it's the way that we've settled upon, for better or worse.

woiyo wrote:

So my question you you is HOW do your measure the potential and WHO should be making that decision?

The potential for harm is measured in the course of the legislative process. The persons making that decision are the elected representatives.

ehBeth wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:

As I pointed out to Cyloptichorn above, if harm to the users was the only harm that we were concerned with, then I'd be impressed with such statistics.

What other harm have you identified?

Harm to others.

Given your conclusion/assumption - if it's as harmful, but no more harmful, than alcohol - why the different legal status?

Sounds to me that so far the only good case that has been made is for the banning of alcohol.

And you're confusing two entirely different arguments, which is bad logic.

You said that the culture of Latin American immigrants to the US constitutes American culture. That is, of course, wrong, and no appeal to the differences in the harmfulness of various cultural practices can save that argument. Now, if you want to argue that smoking marijuana is less harmful than female genital mutilation or honor killings, I suppose you might be right, but that's not an argument in which I am particularly interested, nor is it in any way analogous to the argument that I actually made.

Latin American culture is now part of our culture. Of course, the Egyptian immigrant whose cultural heritage includes female genital mutilation would also be following "American culture" when he mutilated his daughter, just as the Pakistani immigrant whose cultural heritage includes honor killings would also be following "American culture" when he killed his daughter. For my part, I don't agree with that definition of "culture," and I'm certainly glad that I don't have to try to defend it with a straight face.

DrewDad wrote:

2. If you are satisfied with the legality of alchohol, and if pot and alchohol are equally dangerous, then you would be satisfied with making alchohol illegal and pot legal, n'est pas?

Only if marijuana held the same place in society and culture as alcohol does. But it doesn't.

So you're assuming something because you want to.

<shrug>

Certainly your right.

Given your conclusion/assumption - if it's as harmful, but no more harmful, than alcohol - why the different legal status?

The Netherlands and the United States: A Comparison

The Netherlands follows a policy of separating the market for illicit drugs. Cannabis is primarily purchased through coffee shops. Coffee shops offer no or few possibilities for purchasing illicit drugs other than cannabis. Thus The Netherlands achieve a separation of the soft drug market from the hard drugs market - and separation of the 'acceptable risk' drug user from the 'unacceptable risk' drug user.

Source: Abraham, Manja D., University of Amsterdam, Centre for Drug Research, Places of Drug Purchase in The Netherlands (Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam, September 1999), pp. 1-5.


Comparing Important Drug and Violence Indicators
Social Indicator Comparison Year USA Netherlands
Lifetime prevalence of marijuana use (ages 12+) 2001 36.9% 1 17.0% 2
Past month prevalence of marijuana use (ages 12+) 2001 5.4% 1 3.0% 2
Lifetime prevalence of heroin use (ages 12+) 2001 1.4% 1 0.4% 2
Incarceration Rate per 100,000 population 2002 701 3 100 4
Per capita spending on criminal justice system (in Euros) 1998 €379 5 €223 5
Homicide rate per 100,000 population Average 1999-2001 5.56 6 1.51 6


Source 1: US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, National Household Survey on Drug Abuse: Volume I. Summary of National Findings (Washington, DC: HHS, August 2002), p. 109, Table H.1.

Source 2: Trimbos Institute, "Report to the EMCDDA by the Reitox National Focal Point, The Netherlands Drug Situation 2002" (Lisboa, Portugal: European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, Nov. 2002), p. 28, Table 2.1.

Source 3: Walmsley, Roy, "World Prison Population List (fifth edition) (London, England: Research, Development and Statistics Directorate of the Home Office), Dec. 2003, p. 3, Table 2.

Source 4: Walmsley, Roy, "World Prison Population List (fifth edition) (London, England: Research, Development and Statistics Directorate of the Home Office), Dec. 2003, p. 5, Table 4.

Source 5: van Dijk, Frans & Jaap de Waard, "Legal infrastructure of the Netherlands in international perspective: Crime control" (Netherlands: Ministry of Justice, June 2000), p. 9, Table S.13.

Source 6: Barclay, Gordon, Cynthia Tavares, Sally Kenny, Arsalaan Siddique & Emma Wilby, "International comparisons of criminal justice statistics 2001," Issue 12/03 (London, England: Home Office Research, Development & Statistics Directorate, October 2003), p. 10, Table 1.1.


"There were 2.4 drug-related deaths per million inhabitants in the Netherlands in 1995. In France this figure was 9.5, in Germany 20, in Sweden 23.5 and in Spain 27.1. According to the 1995 report of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction in Lisbon, the Dutch figures are the lowest in Europe. The Dutch AIDS prevention programme was equally successful. Europe-wide, an average of 39.2% of AIDS victims are intravenous drug-users. In the Netherlands, this percentage is as low as 10.5%."

Source: Netherlands Ministry of Justice, Fact Sheet: Dutch Drugs Policy, (Utrecht: Trimbos Institute, Netherlands Institute of Mental Health and Addiction, 1999), from the Netherlands Justice Ministry website at http://www.minjust.nl:8080/a_beleid/fact/cfact7.htm.


"The number of problem opiate/crack users seems to have remained relatively stable in the past ten years (3.1 per 1000 people aged 15-64 years). In the past decade, local field studies among traditional groups of problem opiate users have shown a strong in-crease in the co-use of crack cocaine, a reduction in injecting drug use, and an increase in psychiatric and somatic comorbidity."

Source: Trimbos Institute, "Drug Situation 2006 The Netherlands by the Reitox National Focal Point: Report to the EMCDDA" (Utrecht, Netherlands: Trimbos-Instuut, 2007), p. 9.


"Cannabis use among young people has also increased in most Western European countries and in the US. The rate of (cannabis) use among young people in the US is much higher than in the Netherlands, and Great Britain and Ireland also have relatively larger numbers of school students who use cannabis."

Source: Netherlands Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport, Drug Policy in the Netherlands: Progress Report September 1997-September 1999, (The Hague: Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport, November 1999), p. 7.


"The figures for cannabis use among the general population reveal the same pictures. The Netherlands does not differ greatly from other European countries. In contrast, a comparison with the US shows a striking difference in this area: 32.9% of Americans aged 12 and above have experience with cannabis and 5.1% have used in the past month. These figures are twice as high as those in the Netherlands."

Source: Netherlands Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport, Drug Policy in the Netherlands: Progress Report September 1997-September 1999, (The Hague: Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport, November 1999), pp. 7-8.


"The prevalence figures for cocaine use in the Netherlands do not differ greatly from those for other European countries. However, the discrepancy with the United States is very large. The percentage of the general population who have used cocaine at some point is 10.5% in the US, five times higher than in the Netherlands. The percentage who have used cocaine in the past month is 0.7% in the US, compared with 0.2% in the Netherlands.*"

Source: Netherlands Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport, Drug Policy in the Netherlands: Progress Report September 1997-September 1999, (The Hague: Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport, November 1999), p. 6. The report notes "*The figures quoted in this paragraph for drug use in the US are taken from the National Household Survey 1997, SAMHSA, Office of Applied Studies, Washington, DC".


"The National Youth Health Surveys (in 1988, 1992, 1996, 1999) among pupils (12-18 years) showed that the increase in cannabis use since 1988 stabilised between 1996 and 1999 (De Zwart et al. 2000). According to the Health Behaviour in School-aged Children study, this trend continued in 2001 (Ter Bogt et al. 2003). Use of other drugs showed a similar trend or slightly drecreased (LTP of ecstasy and amphetamine)."

Source: Trimbos Institute, "Report to the EMCDDA by the Reitox National Focal Point, The Netherlands Drug Situation 2003" (Lisboa, Portugal: European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, Dec. 2003), p. 19.

For more information, check out Drug War Facts: International Policies & Statistics.

Joe has stated earlier in this thread that alcohol is more deeply rooted in American culture as marijuana is, and that this should make a legal difference.

Why cultural roots should make a legal difference I don't understand. After all, if a drug is bad, passing it down the generations doesn't make it any better.

You 100% have not identified any potential or possible harm to others. I am actually surprised you would claim such a thing. When asked, you profess to not wish to actually do any research, yet you pretend to speak from authority on this issue?

I 'might be right' that female genital mutilation and honor killings have a pernicious and easily identifiable negative effect upon others, whereas marijuana does not? Of course I'm right. Appealing to Extremes on your part, to say that if we accept the fact that other cultures who came to America smoke marijuana, we should accept acts which are harmful to others.

Also, I didn't say anything about 'immigrants' at all. The Latin American culture is a part of the US culture, because many generations of people of Latin descent were born here in America, and have helped to shape that culture.

You may want to actually do a little research into the history of marijuana use in America before you make claims like this.

An appeal to tradition doesn't hold any water with me.

If you're interested in actually discussing the issue, then give us some real evidence of the harms of marijuana. Otherwise, one might say you're just blowing smoke.

Joe,
I think it's safe to assume that you've had contact with pot smokers throughout your life and since you think it's so harmful to others, I would have at least expected that you could give us personal experience examples as to how the pot smoker is harming others.

You're basing your arguement on other peoples opinions, but I'd be more interested in hearing about your personal experiences.