Speaker: Towards a realistic drug policy
385 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 … 16 Newer→ Last
-
The key flaw in this argument is the presumption that cannabis would become an alcohol substitute for a lot of people if it were legal.
The vast majority of dope smokers I knew as a teenager were binge drinkers as well, and the majority of adults I know who smoke an occasional still enjoy a drink or two.
I don't imagine there would be much reduction in social harm from both drugs being legal - some people use drugs responsibly, lots of people don't.
-
All the same, I'd like it to not be around me, or around my kids. I think there's sufficient evidence that developing brains are affected by cannabis. So I'd vote in favour of it being served in cannabis R18 or similar cafes, rather than legalised for general private use.
The Dunedin and Christchurch longitudinal studies have shown reasonably convincingly that the long-term risks of cannabis are much higher in users under 18, and the earlier the first use the greater the risk.
I've had this conversation with one of my kids already, after he came in from shooting the breeze with some of his twentysomething online gaming buddies.
"You know, I'd really like to try pot some time," he said.
"Well, you probably will at some point, but not now. I'm not being a nana saying this -- the science says it's a very bad idea for you to have it at your age when your brain's still developing. Seriously. I'm glad you've brought it up, because I'd want to talk to you about it anyway."
"Oh, okay."
He came back a little later.
"There's this other kind of pot, that's like super-pot, that the guys have mentioned."
"Salvia?"
"Actually, yeah, that was it."
" Definitely talk to me before you go near that."
-
"There's this other kind of pot, that's like super-pot, that the guys have mentioned."
"Salvia?"
"Actually, yeah, that was it."
" Definitely talk to me before you go near that."
I've been wondering about this stuff for a while. What's the bad word?
-
Now it just makes me incredibly nervous and I never touch it. But man it served its purpose for a time.
One of the more striking conclusions from the Auckland Uni School of Medicine survey on drug us is the major reason people give for stopping using cannabis: they didn't like it any more .
The majority of New Zealanders who use cannabis stop using it at some point -- I know some very keen smokers who stopped for the same or similar reasons to you.
The same survey consistently finds that only a very few people are deterred from use by marijuana's legal status. If the law is meant to stop people smoking pot, the evidence is that it simply does not do that.
-
I have to agree with Shay. I don't think many people would switch either.
For me, our binging to oblivion culture has deep roots and the substance abuse problem is the symptom of systemic unhappiness.
But anyway, I do see a big "harm reduction" coming from cutting organised crime out of the market. I also see some benefits in allowing pipes, bongs, resin, etc -- the less tar people ingest, the better.
-
I've been wondering about this stuff for a while. What's the bad word?
You've got to be a pretty keen psychonaut to use salvia more more than a handful of times -- it's like dropping in for five or 10 minutes at the peak of a strong acid trip. The first time I had a proper dose I felt like I went beyond space and time and came back. Apparently, I was only "out" for a few seconds.
There's little evidence of long-term harm, but people can certainly hurt themselves or become distressed in the midst of it.
Search YouTube for "salvia" -- there are tons of clips of young people blowing out their friends and making videos of it. Pete Cronshaw had some on TV a while ago and clearly did not enjoy it. Cameras aren't a good idea.
Lying down, under the watch of someone who knows the score is more appropriate. Another issue: the herb is fortified for sale -- there's quite a big difference between 5x and 15x salvia.
-
But anyway, I do see a big "harm reduction" coming from cutting organised crime out of the market. I also see some benefits in allowing pipes, bongs, resin, etc -- the less tar people ingest, the better.
I've spoken to someone from the Hemp Store about vapourisers. They really work -- although the problem seems to be that they work too well.
They'll always tell a purchaser to go go easy, start small, etc. And most people go home and get themselves way more stoned than they meant to be.
-
Prohibition makes no sense. It is irrational to ban a substance that is only mildly harmful, while allowing other more harmful substances to be legally sold.
Cannabis is harmful - exactly how harmful is clearly a matter of some contention. But alcohol and tobacco are also harmful. More so.
It is irrational to argue in favour of continuing the prohibition on cannabis, unless you are also in favour of banning alcohol and tobacco.
We accept that people are allowed to drink, and we legislate to control where it can be purchased, carried and consumed, and what you can do while under its influence. There are similar rules around the sale of tobacco.
Legalise it, control it and tax it. This will reduce crime, lessen the ower of the gangs, and provide revenues that should cover any potential health cost.
This is not something that affects me personally as a smoker, because I don't smoke anything. I grew up in a family of smokers and this has made be rabidly anti-tobacco. I also never found marijuana to be my thing.
-
I started learning how to read and write proper, when I was 35.
I didn't say you stopped learning as an adult, clearly you can keep learning until the day you die.
But your brain stops physically developing in your youth. That's when all the connections that are going to be made, are made. Not something you want to screw up with chemicals.
-
I'd be keen to see the harm caused by smoking the drug reduced. To that end the criminalisation of vaporisers was a disappointing move.
Still, cookies aren't yet illegal.
-
Just Thinking wrote: "But come on, your source for Dak doesn't cause cancer is the Washington Post."
Here's the original study: Hashibe et al., Marijuana Use and the Risk of Lung Cancer and Upper Aerodigestive Tract Cancer: Results of a Population-based Case-control Study," Cancer Epidemiolgy Biomarkers & Prevention 15 (2006): 1829-34.
The study's conclusions were reported in the Washington Post, May 26, 2006. Here's a quote: "We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the asociation would be more positive with heavier use. What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect among marijuana smokers who had lower incidences of cancer compared to nonusers of the drug" - Dr Donald Tashkin, University of California
-
To explain: Stephen's op-ed was originally for the Herald, which wouldn't run it. I was happy to do so, but too lazy to find all those cites and provide links where possible.
Stephen or anyone else -- can we crowdsource this? -- deel free to post those links in comments.
-
But come on, your source for Dak doesn't cause cancer is the Washington Post.
The Washington Post reporting a study doesn't make the study wrong.
All mass murderers were pot smokers.
Uh, you got a cite for that, buddy? Because it looks like something you just made up.
-
But your brain stops physically developing in your youth. That's when all the connections that are going to be made, are made. Not something you want to screw up with chemicals.
I thought that scientific consensus on this had moved slightly. Can't give you a proper citation, but one of the endless repeat interviews on NatRad over the summer mentioned it. Which could have a small impact on the question of legalising for adults, which I hadn't thought of before.
While I'm talking to the experts, what do people feel about the duration of effect from smoking dope? I know that it is 'measurable' for days, and note that Tony reckons it lingers a couple of days (in kids) after the weekend. In practise, how much does this constrict where and when it is safe and responsible to smoke?
-
The argument is a lot simpler.
Its my body. Not yours.
Noone should be able to dictate what I can or cannot consume, regardless of the harm to myself if I so choose - unless I harm others.
And it should be the harm to the others that should be punished, not the consumption that may or may not lead to said harm.
-
The key flaw in this argument is the presumption that cannabis would become an alcohol substitute for a lot of people if it were legal.
No, not for a lot, but for some.
The balloon effect describes a situation where the proactive prohibition of one action produces a similar counter-action – like when you squeeze one end of a balloon, you simply shift air to the other end. We exist in a society where pressure is being applied to marijuana end of the balloon; as a result, air is shifted to the alcohol end and it’s use has artificially expanded.
Take the pressure off the cannabis end and we will see a shift - albeit slight - in the use rates away from alcohol and towards cannabis.
I also believe that legalising pot will reduce tobacco consumption - possibly quite considerably.
Because both alcohol and tobacco are demonstratively more dangerous than cannabis, even a slight reduction in their use will have an immediate postive impact on public health.
-
But anyway, I do see a big "harm reduction" coming from cutting organised crime out of the market.
I don't see how you cut out organised crime without making cannabis as readily available as alcohol is currently.
Any restrictions on the sale of cannabis will keep drug dealers in business because their supply, distribution and sales networks are so well established.
If we got rid of booze in supermarket shelves and 24-hour liquor stores, on the other hand, I doubt there would be a sudden proliferation of sly groggers and illegal stills.
I agree with the decriminalisation by the way - prohibition doesn't work and is inconsistent. I just don't see any great social benefits from legalising cannabis either.
-
The balloon effect describes a situation where the proactive prohibition of one action produces a similar counter-action
But when it comes to drug use - at least in NZ - the more readily available a drug is, the higher the use. And I simply don't see how legalising cannabis will make it less available.
-
One of the more striking conclusions from the Auckland Uni School of Medicine survey on drug us is the major reason people give for stopping using cannabis: they didn't like it any more .
The majority of New Zealanders who use cannabis stop using it at some point -- I know some very keen smokers who stopped for the same or similar reasons to you.
That's interesting, thanks. Now I touch every couple of years just to remind myself of how little I really enjoy it.
The Dunedin and Christchurch longitudinal studies have shown reasonably convincingly that the long-term risks of cannabis are much higher in users under 18, and the earlier the first use the greater the risk.
Doh!
the science says it's a very bad idea for you to have it at your age when your brain's still developing
I want to read more on this. See I always knew that when I was high I couldn't learn new things. I could laugh at George Carlin but I couldn't learn. I also always thought that I had a bad memory and was just bad at maths and science. Lateral or logical thinking wasn't my thing. I was more into literature, music, etc.
Except my job now requires lateral thinking and in the 7 or so years since I stopped smoking, I've started doing expert Sudoku puzzles, riddles, etc. Stuff that I never did before because I thought I was just bad at it.
I have wondered whether I have just learned how to do these things -- learning being something I wasn't very good at before because I was often high as a kite.
I've wondered whether my brain had repaired itself because it seemed really incongruous. An old friend saw me doing a jigsaw puzzle and thought I'd lost my mind.
Anyway, really interesting because I'd been thinking about this for a while.
-
All mass murderers were pot smokers
Ok, your homework is to produce a complete list of everyone who murdered four or more people and a reference to them smoking weed. Don't post again until you've done it.
(I reckon Mohamed Atta and his cohorts didn't smoke dope, it being against their religion and that, but references to the contrary are welcomed).
Geoff, how do you know which of your students smoke?
More to the point, how do you know any of them don't?
-
And I simply don't see how legalising cannabis will make it less available.
Legalising cannabis will make it more available to adults in a far safer environment than we currently have; therefore encouraging adults to give it a go and see if they prefer it to alcohol.
But please remember I'm not advocating cannabis use.
Because I'm looking at a system based on the model set by the Netherlands, cannabis would be R18 or more and outlets - cafes, Daktories? - would require customers to present ID; the same way we currently regulate alcohol. It's not perfect, but it's a damn sight better than 'tinny' houses which happily sell pot to my 14 year-old son's classmates.
-
it's a damn sight better than 'tinny' houses which happily sell pot to my 14 year-old sons classmates.
If you are proposing sales restrictions, what makes you think your son's 14 year-old classmates won't still be buying pot from a tinny house?
Criminals don't care what the legalities are, they care about whether they can make money and if a large chunk of their market still can't buy cannabis legally, they will keep selling to them. As I said earlier the blackmarket is so well established, it won't just disappear.
-
I once asked my son if he could buy any illegal drugs at school at lunchtime. 'Of course not,' he replied, with a look that said parents are so stupid, 'they don't sell them at the canteen'.
-
If you are proposing sales restrictions, what makes you think your son's 14 year-old classmates won't still be buying pot from a tinny house?
Just look at the Netherlands. Their rate of teen use is a fraction of ours.
My elder son is now 16. At 14, his friends smoked mostly pot because it was easier to buy than beer. Now, some of his friends are finding it easier to pass off for 18 and are shifting over to alcohol instead.
What irony: we live in a country where it's easier for a 14 year-old to buy cannabis than booze, and easier for an adult to buy booze than pot!
-
Stephen or anyone else -- can we crowdsource this? -- feel free to post those links in comments.
Rather than go hunting down all those citations, I'd recommend this recent report (Beckley Foundation's Cannabis Commission) for probably the best and most recent review of cannabis harm literature: that's both harm from pot, and from the system "controlling" pot.
Good to see NORML beginning to get their ideas out there now as we head towards a major review of our drug law - but Stephen, I don't think your analysis is quite there yet (as previous comments above note - the alcohol v cannabis argument has its flaws).
And it's probably time NORML detailed what it means by "legalisation".
Ross Bell, NZ Drug Foundation
Post your response…
This topic is closed.