Cannabis referendum.

[onearmedbandit]

I don't think anyone is saying that certain people do not work well with weed. Certain people don't work well with alcohol. Or gambling. Or fatty foods. But only one of them is currently illegal, despite them all having a single common denominator...

Justify that. And yes you could extend that argument to all drugs right? Well it's well know the 'war on drugs' was a total failure...

[Katman]

Justify that. And yes you could extend that argument to all drugs right?

Yes, you certainly can.

There's no shortage of people who abuse prescription drugs as well.

(And before anyone jumps on me, I'm not suggesting that prescription drugs have no use - just that plenty of people are known to develop a psychological dependency on them).

[TheDemonLord]

Or maybe they were just drop-kicks waiting for an excuse to come their way.

No.

Please stop trying to make excuses for a situation you have no clue about.

[TheDemonLord]

I don't think anyone is saying that certain people do not work well with weed. Certain people don't work well with alcohol. Or gambling. Or fatty foods. But only one of them is currently illegal, despite them all having a single common denominator...

Justify that. And yes you could extend that argument to all drugs right? Well it's well know the 'war on drugs' was a total failure...

For the latter half - it actually raises a very interesting Debate.

If you take Meth as an example - Should we keep it illegal?

My Libertarian leanings say that we should legalize it, let people make their own decision etc.

My Pragmatic leanings say that there are too many negatives, both in the short-term and the long-term associated with it.

[Paul in NZ]

And that right there is one of the very real problems.

A great many people choose not to take advantage of any benefit they might gain from cannabis simply because of an archaic law.

Look I agree - a conviction would put an end to my employment. I would like to see what effect it has on say Vickis FTD as alcohol is strictly limited to a glass of wine. However quite frankly I'm not expecting anything of it so I really don't have a strong opinion on this.

[onearmedbandit]

For the latter half - it actually raises a very interesting Debate.

If you take Meth as an example - Should we keep it illegal?

My Libertarian leanings say that we should legalize it, let people make their own decision etc.

My Pragmatic leanings say that there are too many negatives, both in the short-term and the long-term associated with it.

And this is why it's a very difficult question to answer. And one to which I have no answer for. Social harm is one consideration, but it's clearly ignored in the case of alcohol and tobacco, not for weed. As an example it's often quoted that burglaries are committed so people can fence items to buy weed. Some people also do the same to buy alcohol. Or food. Dairies get knocked over not for cash so much these days but for cigarettes. Where do we draw the line on social harm?

[TheDemonLord]

And this is why it's a very difficult question to answer. And one to which I have no answer for. Social harm is one consideration, but it's clearly ignored in the case of alcohol and tobacco, not for weed. As an example it's often quoted that burglaries are committed so people can fence items to buy weed. Some people also do the same to buy alcohol. Or food. Dairies get knocked over not for cash so much these days but for cigarettes. Where do we draw the line on social harm?

With Alcohol, we've got Prohibition in the US (The only Amendment to be Amended), whereby the sheer number of people willing to break the law (and the associated networks and enterprises that sprung up to support the breaking of said law) caused additional Social Harm, to the existing Social Harm that Alcohol causes.

As much as I wouldn't mind seeing Cigarettes no longer available, I suspect we would see the exact same thing.

[onearmedbandit]

With Alcohol, we've got Prohibition in the US (The only Amendment to be Amended), whereby the sheer number of people willing to break the law (and the associated networks and enterprises that sprung up to support the breaking of said law) caused additional Social Harm, to the existing Social Harm that Alcohol causes.

As much as I wouldn't mind seeing Cigarettes no longer available, I suspect we would see the exact same thing.

This in itself is the perfect reason to legalise all drugs then. It's proven by prohibition in the US (that was one of the big factors in organised crime exploding in America - Capone's speakeasys for example) that the social harms of consumption still existed, people will get what the want however they can but that was then compounded by the criminal network that arose from the illicit trade.

Education is key. I'll never touch meth because I'm informed, even if it were made legal. Some people fear education is seen as condoning something. Such as some Catholic schools don't teach safe sex practices for fear of condoning premarital sex. Because young adolescents will only discover natural sexual urges if you educate them about it. Same with drug use. Kids will discover it. And indulge. Better education surrounding the possible effects and consequences will make for more informed decisions being made by these kids.

[TheDemonLord]

This in itself is the perfect reason to legalise all drugs then. It's proven by prohibition in the US (that was one of the big factors in organised crime exploding in America - Capone's speakeasys for example) that the social harms of consumption still existed, people will get what the want however they can but that was then compounded by the criminal network that arose from the illicit trade.

Education is key. I'll never touch meth because I'm informed, even if it were made legal. Some people fear education is seen as condoning something. Such as some Catholic schools don't teach safe sex practices for fear of condoning premarital sex. Because young adolescents will only discover natural sexual urges if you educate them about it. Same with drug use. Kids will discover it. And indulge. Better education surrounding the possible effects and consequences will make for more informed decisions being made by these kids.

Not quite - if you compare Alcohol (in the US)

70% have tried it, over 50% regularly consume it. I'd normally be happy to factor in a marked decrease if it was made illegal, but again - Prohibition....

Whereas with Meth, it's only 0.3% of the population regularly use it.

You could probably express it as some abstract Math formula where:

if Social Harm + associated costs > Cost of enforcement + rate of non-compliance = Legal
if Social Harm + associated costs < Cost of enforcement + rate of non-compliance = illegal

When I've got a way to accurately calculate all the variables in that equation, I'll let you know, claim my Nobel prize and be the lord-high (heh) Arbiter of what should and should not be legal.

[onearmedbandit]

When I've got a way to accurately calculate all the variables in that equation, I'll let you know, claim my Nobel prize and be the lord-high (heh) Arbiter of what should and should not be legal.

And therein lies the rub. We most likely will never have those variables correct as you point out. I wasn't really suggesting that we should legalise all drugs because of how Prohibition failed, more pointing it out as a good argument against the criminalisation of something that has a relatively low social harm factor. Before anyone tries to raise 'well what are the social harms?' may I remind you of the well documented social harms associated with the legal use of alcohol and tobacco, arguably much higher than the consumption of cannabis. And yes you can then say 'well just because we have those in society doesn't mean we should add more', to which I say that's a very poor argument taking into account the context of what we are talking about specifically. Phew.

[Katman]

No.

Please stop trying to make excuses for a situation you have no clue about.

Well you might not like me saying it but I refuse to believe that cannabis turns people into 'dope-heads' or 'drop-kick stoners' (as you so eloquently put it) unless there's a psychological predisposition that allows that to happen.

[onearmedbandit]

Well you might not like me saying it but I refuse to believe that cannabis turns people into 'dope-heads' or 'drop-kick stoners' (as you so eloquently put it) unless there's a psychological predisposition that allows that to happen.

From my own experience I have to agree. No one I personally know fits the stereotypical 'dope-head' description, rather they're just normal everyday people.

[Katman]

It's the same as people claiming that cannabis can create psychosis in some people.

I don't believe it 'creates' psychosis but rather, that it could possibly bring an existing psychosis to the surface.

[skippa1]

The thing I am most interested in is how workplace drug testing will be managed, current testing is for the presence of only and in no way lets them know the level of impairment

For me this is the only way this legislation will be beneficial. Legal doesnt equal ability to indulge. There needs to be a detection level that can be measured and impairment established. Presence proves nothing.

[Katman]

For me this is the only way this legislation will be beneficial. Legal doesnt equal ability to indulge. There needs to be a detection level that can be measured and impairment established. Presence proves nothing.

And I would suggest that the only reason no amount of effort really seems to have gone into figuring out an adequate impairment test is that businesses have been quite happy to take advantage of the illegal status of cannabis and therefore take the easy option of simply testing for presence.