Free the weed, dope, cannabis, hooch, Fri 4 Feb, outside Auckland District Courts

[Edbear]

I can understand an argument of keeping something illegal for health reasons. But not because you personally don't like it.

Alcohol is a mind altering substance regardless of whether it's one glass or six. Why is one glass of wine ok and not two? Because that is your choice? Many would argue that no wine is best, but it seems you'd disagree with them.... Imbibing yourself and then judging others for the amount they imbibe (or the drug they imbibe) seems a little hypocritical.

Please do point out where I have "judged" anyone for smoking. All I have done is set out the facts of the matter.

Only second hand. But the old, "Don't knock it 'til you've tried it!" argument is a non-starter. I've never smoked cigarettes, or done Heroin, P, or many other things that are deterimental to one's health, either.

The plain and simple facts are that smoking anything is a known and proven carcinogenic activity. Cannabis is by its nature a mind-altering drug used for recreational purposes and not everyone wants to participate in that.

Marijuana use is by a minority of the population, not a generally and widespread activity with majority approval.

The OP and his supporters simply want the law changed to decriminalise the use of cannabis and I have been pointing out why they won't succeed and what they may try instead, rather than engage in illegal protest action that will inevitably result in bad publicity and hardening attitudes against them by the very ones they want to convince.

1/ Unlike alcohol.

2/ Amazing how adept people are at taking things out of context and ignoring relevant points and who would rather get personal than address the issue...

Flame away by all means, accuse me of anything you like, it will never give credibility to your cause.

[onearmedbandit]

1/ Unlike alcohol.

.

US Dept of Health and Human Services disagree.

http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/cancer/a/aa000520.htm

[Edbear]

Thanks. I'm not disputing the health risks, not at all. So am I right in guessing that the following statement by you,

...is in relation to alcohol only? I'm not stirring, well not intentionally. It's just I've met a lot of people who have a negative view on marijuana (losing control etc) but who have never smoked it.

You'd be surprised, I know I was, and still am, about who actually smokes. Just not everyone who does is keen to admit it.

Yeah, I mostly agree here. While I have no shame in saying I smoke marijuana, I'm not about to go and flaunt it in public. To me, these people achieve nothing, and are an embarrassment. Just my opinion. But all I'm saying is they do no good for their cause.

No, my opinion is relating to all drugs including prescription drugs. And my opinion is relating to why someone wants to smoke or drink as well. I've already said it is my own opinion and of course everyone has their opinion. All I've been trying to do is balance the argument and get people to reason objectively. It is very hard for the pro-cannabis group to argue objectively. As for alcohol, some people are teetotal, some drink in moderation, some are alcoholics. Alcohol in small amounts is generally supported by science to be pretty harmless, but I'll not argue with anyone who doesn't drink at all.

US Dept of Health and Human Services disagree.

http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/cancer/a/aa000520.htm

Thanks for the link, here's a few relevant comments from it...

studies indicate that the risk is most pronounced among smokers and at the highest levels of consumption.

in the recognition that many cancers are apparently induced by chemicals in the home workplace general environment and from the use of certain drugs.

It identifies "potential" cancer hazards. A listing in the report does not by itself establish that a substance presents a cancer risk to an individual in daily life, according to press releases

Epidemiologic research has shown a dose-dependent association between alcohol consumption and certain types of cancer; as alcohol consumption increases, so does risk of developing certain cancers. Previous research indicated alcohol was a possible catalyst, but not a carcinogen itself.

[onearmedbandit]

Thanks for the link, here's a few relevant comments from it...



Epidemiologic research has shown a dose-dependent association between alcohol consumption and certain types of cancer; as alcohol consumption increases, so does risk of developing certain cancers. Previous research indicated alcohol was a possible catalyst, but not a carcinogen itself.[/I]

Excuse me, but why have you chosen to highlight the last bit of that text, but not the important part preceding it, 'Previous research indicated alcohol was'?

In fact, here is the title of the article, just so there is no confusion or pulling of wool.

Alcohol Listed as 'Known Carcinogen'
Previously a Catalyst, Now Listed as a Carcinogen

[onearmedbandit]

And I'm still at a loss as to how you can claim that you "prefer to remain sober and in full control of my faculties and do not enjoy the feelings of a lack of control and awareness that comes from such.' without actually having had any personal experience. To me that makes your statement as baseless as any put forward by the 'pro-marijuana campaigners'.

[Edbear]

Excuse me, but why have you chosen to highlight the last bit of that text, but not the important part preceding it, 'Previous research indicated alcohol was'?

In fact, here is the title of the article, just so there is no confusion or pulling of wool.

Sorry, my bad. Let me elaborate. It's obviously dose-dependent and has been known for a long time to increase the risk of developing certain cancers with heavy use, such as in alcoholics. I wasn't trying to pull the wool, and could have explained it better.

[Buyasta]

The plain and simple facts are that smoking anything is a known and proven carcinogenic activity.

That's not really that good an argument though, as smoking is not the only method used, and even when it is, it's still less harmful than tobacco - as you say, smoking anything is carcinogenic, simply due to the fact that lungs are not designed for smoke inhalation, but to the best of my knowledge, there's nothing in marijuana that makes it any more carcinogenic than inhaling any other form of smoke, unlike tobacco, which is treated with a number of chemicals - for example, many companies treat the tobacco with ammonia, because it makes them burn more quickly.
So even if one were to smoke an equal amount (which in itself is unlikely, as people will smoke a great deal more tobacco than marijuana), they'd be doing more damage with tobacco than marijuana.
Also, as I said above, smoking isn't the only method of consumption - it can be vaporized, eaten, or prepared as a tea or a tincture, in which case the only potential for harmful effects is if the plant was treated with any form of herbicide or pesticide.

Comparison with tobacco is fairly pointless anyway, as the only similarity between the two is that they are both most often smoked, which is an inefficient and harmful method of consumption, no matter what the substance.
A far more apt comparison is with alcohol, as they are both consumed for much the same reason - the effects upon the brain.
When it comes to harmful effects, alcohol is clearly a great deal worse than marijuana, as heavy use can lead to alcohol poisoning or cirrhosis.
As far as the level of impairment, while a small amount of alcohol will cause less impairment, by the time you get to the legal limit, you'd be just as impaired from alcohol consumption as you would from marijuana consumption, and from that point on, more alcohol is going to cause further impairment at a much greater rate than more marijuana.
Finally, in terms of the behavior of those using alcohol vs those using marijuana, I'm of the opinion that alcohol is much worse - it tends to make people much louder, more argumentative, and more prone to violence, in addition to the possibility of dependence, whereas marijuana is non-addictive, and people using it become more calm and relaxed, and less likely to engage in violence or anti-social behavior.

I don't believe in any health benefits from marijuana, although I can believe that it may aid in pain relief in some cases, but there are also very few harmful effects whether in terms of health or behavior of regular users, and I think alcohol has a great deal more harmful effects in both those cases.

In addition to the minimal health impact if consumed in ways other than smoking, and less severe behavioral effects on users, other arguments for decriminalization is that it would remove a major source of income for various gangs, take away one potential reason for inter-gang violence, free up police resources that are used to hunt for grow ops, free police drug units to focus on more harmful drugs such as P, remove the possibility of hikers or trampers being injured or killed by the traps that gangs set around their grow ops, provide another source of taxation for the government, and make it safer for those who are going to smoke whether it's illegal or not - if it's regulated, you can be sure what you're about to consume was not treated with any harmful herbicides or pesticides, and they wouldn't need to deal with drug dealers or gang members.

Ultimately, I can't see any good reasons to keep it criminalized other than tradition and maintaining the status quo, whereas there seem to be plenty of arguments in favor of decriminalization.

Having said that, I doubt the government will decriminalize it anytime soon, if ever, and in all probability, all this protest will achieve is further alienating those who are opposed to decriminalization, and probably get a few people arrested.

[onearmedbandit]

Of course it's dose dependant. Everything is. If I drank 5ml of petrol I'll be fine, if I drink 1l in one go, I'll be dead. If I drank 1l over a month I'll probably be fine. If I drank 1l every month for 10yrs, well I probably wouldn't make it that far.

[Edbear]

And I'm still at a loss as to how you can claim that you "prefer to remain sober and in full control of my faculties and do not enjoy the feelings of a lack of control and awareness that comes from such.' without actually having had any personal experience. To me that makes your statement as baseless as any put forward by the 'pro-marijuana campaigners'.

Oh, don't worry, I've had personal experience of alcohol and drug induced side effects to the point of near death, in fact. But I don't need to also try cannabis as well. You don't need to try all alcoholic beverages or all drugs to know the results and there is plenty of established medical and scientific research on everything we need to know.

[Usarka]

It is very hard for the pro-cannabis group to argue objectively.

Reasoned argument is a two way street.

I can't help but interpret your comment as "It is very hard to get the pro-cannabis group to agree with me"

[Edbear]

That's not really that good an argument though, as smoking is not the only method used, and even when it is, it's still less harmful than tobacco - as you say, smoking anything is carcinogenic, simply due to the fact that lungs are not designed for smoke inhalation,...SNIP...Having said that, I doubt the government will decriminalize it anytime soon, if ever, and in all probability, all this protest will achieve is further alienating those who are opposed to decriminalization, and probably get a few people arrested.

Not a lot here I can disagree with, really.

[Edbear]

Reasoned argument is a two way street.

I can't help but interpret your comment as "It is very hard to get the pro-cannabis group to agree with me"

I agree it is two-way. See my response to Buyasta. He's obviously put some thought into his views. I doubt I'll get many users to agree with me, but most seem to simply want to smoke cannabis without consequence and consider it a harmless pastime, whereas the facts are not so simple, neither is their approach to TPTB going to win them any support.

[onearmedbandit]

Oh, don't worry, I've had personal experience of alcohol and drug induced side effects to the point of near death, in fact. But I don't need to also try cannabis as well. You don't need to try all alcoholic beverages or all drugs to know the results and there is plenty of established medical and scientific research on everything we need to know.

I'm struggling with your argument here, but lets see if I have it right. 'I have no personal experience in the effects of marijuana when smoked, but as I have in other drugs I can therefore come to the conclusion that the effects will be the same.'

Excluding of course the part about the 'established medical and scientific research on everything we need to know'. I'm not going to even touch that statement with a bargepole.

[Banditbandit]

Totally, but I know you're not a cry baby

Seriously though, the users you know are alway going to colour your perception. I'd wager that I'd probably have a different opinion on Harleys if I were to associate with gang members vs those old guys who's name escapes me.

Ulysses ??? Hey - plenty of Harley riders in Ulysses ..

[onearmedbandit]

I agree it is two-way. See my response to Buyasta. He's obviously put some thought into his views. I doubt I'll get many users to agree with me, but most seem to simply want to smoke cannabis without consequence and consider it a harmless pastime, whereas the facts are not so simple, neither is their approach to TPTB going to win them any support.

Tell me why I should go to jail if I chose to grow some cannabis. Not simply because it's against the law either.

Tell me why my travel should be limited if I have a conviction for cannabis. Not simply because it's the law either.

Tell me. What risk am I to the general public? Who is getting harmed by my activity? Who's property is getting damaged/stolen when I smoke.