Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Yes

67 (62.6%)

Yes, but only if the amount you could own at any one time was limited

14 (13.1%)

Yes, but for Medicinal uses only

10 (9.3%)

Yes, but only for chronic illnesses(Cancer, AIDS, Crohn's Disease, etc.)

3 (2.8%)

No

13 (12.1%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[Bohandas]

I also think that they should legalize Opium, Magic Mushrooms, and LySergic acid Diethylamide

[Neonivek]

I also think that they should legalize Opium, Magic Mushrooms, and LySergic acid Diethylamide

Not Opium... Havn't we outdated and exceeded it in everyway?

Unless your including the whole Opiate family

[Glowcat]

I think the real problem would be more "people who can't get their next fix will often destroy other people's lives in an effort to get another fix, and don't really care about laws anymore most of the time."

I seem to recall reading about a government program, I believe in Switzerland (though I could be wrong), though I'm hazy on the specifics, that went out and gave free heroin to addicts, along with literature regarding treatments and whatnot, with the express purpose of shutting down the black market trade in it and reducing related crime, with further prevention as a secondary goal. As I recall, it was controversial, but successful.

You're probably thinking of Portugal.

Kinda late but I skimmed and didn't see anybody else correct you

@Max White: Try to link to papers (http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/archgenpsychiatry.2011.5) instead of journalism, when possible.

[Siquo]

Late to the party, but let me put things in perspective: A lot of people here look at the use of cannabis as they know it (which is, in an illegal form, where the mere usage or acquirement of the stuff forces you to deal with criminals) and then assume that legalisation will exacerbate that. The step from dealing with criminals to dealing with worse or becoming one is a lot smaller, I think, and that is the real gateway. Also, legalising does not mean people will use it more. Yes, really.

So, from the perspective of a country with legalised marihuana, some factoids:
Schizophrenia per capita: Exactly Average
DALY due to drug abuse: Better than average
Drug use in general compared to US: The US is twice as bad as we are

So yeah, I scoff at those who think legalisation will make matters worse. I've been an extensive user myself for years, but can't stand the stuff anymore. People do grow out of it. I'm also a well adjusted member of society (bleagh ), as are most users I know. Some aren't, but they probably would've fucked up their lives in a different way if it wasn't for marihuana.

[Sir Pseudonymous]

I think the real problem would be more "people who can't get their next fix will often destroy other people's lives in an effort to get another fix, and don't really care about laws anymore most of the time."

I seem to recall reading about a government program, I believe in Switzerland (though I could be wrong), though I'm hazy on the specifics, that went out and gave free heroin to addicts, along with literature regarding treatments and whatnot, with the express purpose of shutting down the black market trade in it and reducing related crime, with further prevention as a secondary goal. As I recall, it was controversial, but successful.

You're probably thinking of Portugal.

Kinda late but I skimmed and didn't see anybody else correct you

I don't think that was, specifically, what I was referring to, but it's in the same vein in any case. What I recall reading about was something about a government handing out or administering free doses to addicts, to stop them from committing crimes to get money to buy heroin, and to undercut the black market trade with simple economics, thus further reducing crime. I could have sworn it was in Geneva or something, but it's all very hazy; I don't think I payed much attention at the time.

[scriver]

I think Denmark's one of the places that's been tried as well. Though it embarrasses me a little, I'm afraid I can't say if it was done in Sweden or not - my immediate reaction was that "we did it here too", but upon further thought I can't remember at all. Extra annoying since studies such as these interest me a great deal, and now I can't remember whether it was just talk about if we should try it or if it was actually done.

[Levi]

Marijuana is harmless enough that yeah I think it should be legalized.

There are actually some very good arguments for decriminalizing all drugs and treating drug addiction as a health issue instead, mostly to stop organized crime from profiting from it and making it easier for addicts to get stability in their life as a step in breaking the addiction. 

[Max White]

Schizophrenia per capita: Exactly Average

Can I assume this has something to do with that little link posting to a university study showing a link between use in early life and the development of schizophrenia?

I like how your flat figures that do not take offer factors into account trump my scientific study.

[Siquo]

I like how your flat figures that do not take offer factors into account trump my scientific study.

A: As Yoda would say: Correlation does not science make. And
B: It shows that the legalisation of marihuana does not have a significant impact on the total amount of schizophrenia.

[Max White]

A. And yet your figures do?
B. Well not realy, your statistics do not even give an average, just a medium. We could use a standard deviation or atleast something more then just being able to compair the ranks of countrys without anything behind it.

[ChairmanPoo]

The first thing I'm going to do is ask what the link you provided means exactly. Because the page title is:

Mortality Statistics > Schizophrenia (per capita) (most recent) by country

And it displays "deaths per million".  So, is this really representing the incidence of schizophrenia in the Netherlands? Or casualties of some sort related to it?

EDIT: Lets check the primary sources they used, shall we? I found that site wanting and confusing. They did not provide much info about the data they provided.

http://www.who.int/gho/en/

At the moment I'm checking this:

http://www.unodc.org/documents/wdr/WDR_2010/2.4_Cannabis.pdf

[lemon10]

Shamelessly stolen from wikipedia

There is some evidence that cannabis use can contribute to schizophrenia. Some studies suggest that cannabis is neither a sufficient nor necessary factor in developing schizophrenia, but that cannabis may significantly increase the risk of developing schizophrenia and may be, among other things, a significant causal factor. Nevertheless, some previous research in this area has been criticized as it has often not been clear whether cannabis use is a cause or effect of schizophrenia. To address this issue, a recent review of studies from which a causal contribution to schizophrenia can be assessed has suggested that cannabis statistically doubles the risk of developing schizophrenia on the individual level, and may, assuming a causal relationship, be responsible for up to 8% of cases in the population.[83]

An older longitudinal study, published in 1987, suggested sixfold increase of schizophrenia risks for high consumers of cannabis (use on more than fifty occasions) in Sweden.[84]

Despite increases in cannabis consumption in the 1960s and 1970s in western society, rates of psychotic disorders such as schizophrenia remained relatively stable.[85][86][87] Also, Sweden and Japan, where self-reported marijuana use is very low, do not have lower rates of psychosis than the U.S. and Canada do.[88]

Just a bit more info for you guys to argue about.

[Siquo]

The first thing I'm going to do is ask what the link you provided means exactly. Because the page title is:

Mortality Statistics > Schizophrenia (per capita) (most recent) by country

Yeah, honestly, I couldn't be bothered to actually read beyond "ah, this looks like it supports my cause let's just throw it in".
I'm sorry guys, you didn't deserve that.

[Max White]

I have this urge to say something about linking marijuana use to lazy debating, but that would be some what of a dick move, so I will just meta-mention it instead.

[Siquo]

I have this urge to say something about linking marijuana use to lazy debating, but that would be some what of a dick move, so I will just meta-mention it instead.

Then I shall meta-lol about it.

Well, my point stays: the effects of smoking marihuana have nothing to do with the effects of legalisation of marihuana. In the Netherlands, less people smoke marihuana than in the US (per capita). So the facts-or-not that it's a stepping stone, gateway, schizo-inducing, harddrug laced future-destroyer has actually nothing to do with legalisation, if anything, they are reasons that you should legalise it, as less people will actually use it.
Source: that pdf Chairman linked to, last page, top map.