Recently, one of our lecturers handed out a survey on marijuana to demonstrate statistics. Afterwards he came up with an estimate of 35% for the proportion of people who had tried marijuana. You might find this number low or high depending on your experiences, but there you go.
Also, the UK government has recently changed the classification of cannabis from B to C (I think), which means it's still illegal, but the penalties are less severe than before. Unfortunately this has some people confused into thinking that cannabis is legal, so the government has launched an advertising campaign saying otherwise. The opposition, meanwhile, are saying that they'd make it a class B drug again if they came to power.
So, what do people think about cannabis? Here's what I think:
I've never tried cannabis, and I don't intend to, even if it becomes legal; however I would change its legal position to:
-Legal to import/export
-Legal to buy/sell for over 18s
-Available on prescription for certain medical problems
-Legal to use, but not in public places (except designated 'cannabis cafes', if these become popular)
-Advertising banned (people would soon find out what brands are available by going to their local shop)
-Duty charged on cannabis, similar to cigarettes, only by weight.
-'Dangers of cannabis' warnings and adverts similar to those for cigarettes.
Why make it legal? Although cannabis can be harmful and addictive, it's not very addictive, and the harm caused to the individual is no worse than tobacco or alcohol. That's not really important anyway; if an adult chooses to use it, it's their business - there's no point arresting people for what they do to themselves. More important is the social effect of the drug - the law's job is to protect society at large from users of it, if necessary. In this area I'd say cannabis is far less harmful than, say, alcohol. Drunk people often become violent and dangerous; stoned people are more likely to be pretty passive while intoxicated. For this reason I don't think cannabis is a danger to society, and I don't think it matters whether it's a danger to the individual, as long as they are aware of the risks, so it should be legal. There are also pragmatic reasons: cannabis use is so widespread that it can't be effectively policed; a legitimate cannabis industry would not pour money into organised crime, nor would it encourage people to try drugs that would still be illegal; it would be much easier to regulate eg the purity of the substance if it was legal; and addicts are more likely to admit they have a problem if they're not afraid of being arrested for saying so.
Why the other stuff? Well I think minors should be protected from all dangerous substances, and they're also the most susceptible to advertising, so ban those. Also I don't want to have to breathe other people's smoke, wacky or not, so no smoking in public places. As for charging duty, it would raise money and help pay for any health costs incurred by users; it seems to work for cigarettes. People ought to be informed about the health dangers, hence the health warnings.
Originally posted by AcolyteA small point, but the Scottish parliament hasn't reclassified canabis, so while possesion of a wee bit of dope in England and Wales is a wrist-slapping offence, our unenlightened Scottish Executive won't change, so its a much bigger deal (so to speak) up here..
[Also, the UK government has recently changed the classification of cannabis from B to C (I think), which means it's still illegal, but the penalties are less severe than before. Unfortunately this has some people confused into thinking that cannabis is legal, so the government has launched an advertising campaign saying otherwise.
Just a wee warning to anyone who might get caught out crossing the border...
Just a slight deviation from the point here, I heard a rumour that Marlboro have already worked out their marketing for the day that marijuana becomes legal. They're going to call them Marley's after Bob Marley and have bought the rights to do so.
Sorry about that threadjacking, but I agree with you on many points I also believe that in the case of marijuana, the definition or classification doesn't really matter. The people who don't take cannabis choose to do so because they don't like the effects or health risks, not because it's illegal. The people who choose to take cannabis clearly are doing so already, so couldn't give a monkeys about the legal status of the drug. If it is made legal, it can be controlled, the government can make some much needed revenue, and the anti-social behaviour element is appealing too. I've been around a lot of people who drink a lot (I own a pub in a city centre) and the behaviour that I've noticed is markedly different to that of people who are high. They are generally more concerned with getting their next mars bar.
Originally posted by AcolyteI essentially agree, although I suspect such policies would be harder to implement in the States. Currently, Maine is one of few states with legal medical cannabis, primarily for pain relief in cancer patients and also as an appetite stimulant for AIDS patients.
Recently, one of our lecturers handed out a survey on marijuana to demonstrate statistics. Afterwards he came up with an estimate of 35% for the proportion of people who had tried marijuana. You might find this number low or high depending on your experiences, but there you go.
Also, the UK government has recently changed the classification of cannabis ...[text shortened]... or cigarettes. People ought to be informed about the health dangers, hence the health warnings.
However, possesion of even relatively small amounts is fairly serious trouble and there is a tendency to determine ''intent to deal'', which is rather more serious, based on the amount possessed rather than on the behaviour of the perpetrator.
On another note, where was this survey taken? I find it hard to believe that a population of university students would contain so small a proportion of people who have tried cannabis. Was the lecturer illustrating problems with taking surveys (for example, the imagined danger of punishment could prevent some people from answering in the affirmative)? I would suspect that a similar survey taken in my school would yield a figure closer to 50%.
I agree with royalchicken, that 35% seems low to me especially in a university setting. And I wholeheartedly agree that it should be legal. I don't think it is near as dangerous as it is led on to be and I don't think it is as addictive as cigarettes and alcohol. I know a ton of people who smoke cannibis but only one person out of all of them who HAS to smoke it. I also do not think that it leads to the use of harder drugs.
NC🙂
Originally posted by royalchickenThe survey was taken in one of the lectures, so the survey group were second year maths undergraduates. The question on the sheet was framed in a way designed to produce more honest answers, as follows:
I essentially agree, although I suspect such policies would be harder to implement in the States. Currently, Maine is one of few states with legal medical cannabis, primarily for pain relief in cancer patients and also as an appetite stimulant for AIDS patients.
However, possesion of even relatively small amounts is fairly serious trouble and ther ...[text shortened]... )? I would suspect that a similar survey taken in my school would yield a figure closer to 50%.
'If your birthday ends in a 0,1 or 2, then answer yes. Otherwise answer the following question: Have you ever tried marijuana?'
The idea is that by answering yes, you're not directly admitting you have tried it, since the person doing the survey doesn't know your birthday. However, the rest of the questionnaire did demonstrate bias. Half the audience got this:
"Do you think that the number of people who have tried marijuana is less than, or more than, 80%? Esitmate what proportion have tried marijuana."
The other half got the same, only with 50% instead of 80%. On average, the ones who got 80% made an estimate of about 41%, whereas those who got 50% made an estimate of about 29%; this being despite the lecturer explaining how these 'anchor points' can cause bias before we filled in the survey. People can't help it!
In case you were wondering, my answers were <80%,30%, and yes. 😀
Originally posted by ncrosbyI think Cambridge is pretty clean-living by university standards - several of my friends are teetotal, and I know/see very few people who smoke cigarettes, let alone spliffs. Apparently Oxford is quite another matter...
I agree with royalchicken, that 35% seems low to me especially in a university setting. And I wholeheartedly agree that it should be legal. I don't think it is near as dangerous as it is led on to be and I don't think it is as addictive as cigarettes and alcohol. I know a ton of people who smoke cannibis but only one person out of all of them who HAS to smoke it. I also do not think that it leads to the use of harder drugs.
NC🙂
Originally posted by AcolyteThe idea in the second type of survey is to make your estimate first and then test it against the anchor point, right?
The survey was taken in one of the lectures, so the survey group were second year maths undergraduates. The question on the sheet was framed in a way designed to produce more honest answers, as follows:
'If your birthday ends in a 0,1 or 2, then answer yes. Otherwise answer the following question: Have you ever tried marijuana?'
The idea is that b ...[text shortened]... ey. People can't help it!
In case you were wondering, my answers were <80%,30%, and yes. 😀
In my experience, which may or may not be directly related to me, is cannibis HELPS with depression. But that's just my opinion, may be different for other people. But the same can be said for alcohol which is legal. I've never heard of schizophrenia being related to cannibis, I'll have to check those links out. The anxiety I can see, can't argue with that one.
NC🙂
Originally posted by ncrosby
In my experience, which may or may not be directly related to me, is cannibis HELPS with depression. But that's just my opinion, may be different for other people. But the same can be said for alcohol which is legal. I've never heard of schizophrenia being related to cannibis, I'll have to check those links out. The anxiety I can see, can't argue with that one.
NC🙂
You write: " ...... cannibis HELPS with depression ....... But the same can be said for alcohol which is legal. ..... "
It sure helps, exactly the way alcohol helps: into the WRONG direction.
Originally posted by ivanhoeI've heard that cannabis and tobacco are correlated with schizophrenia - but this may just mean that schizophrenics are more likely to want to use such substances, due to their condition.
The health risks of marihuana: schizophrenia, depression and anxiety:
http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread15887.shtml
also see the links at the bottom of the page.
Anyway, I'm not disputing that cannabis can be dangerous to the user, but then so are alcohol and tobacco, or even coffee if drunk to excess. But a society which has to force adults who are aware of the options and their consequences to "do what's good for them" is not really free. As I say the yardstick should be danger to others, not to the users, as they've made the choice for themselves.
Originally posted by Acolyte
I've heard that cannabis and tobacco are correlated with schizophrenia - but this may just mean that schizophrenics are more likely to want to use such substances, due to their condition.
Anyway, I'm not disputing that cannabis can be dangerous to the user, but then so are alcohol and tobacco, or even coffee if drunk to excess. But a society which has ...[text shortened]... dstick should be danger to others, not to the users, as they've made the choice for themselves.
If I understand you correctly, society does not have any duty to protect people against themselves, the way parents have a duty to protect their children.
Think about safety belts in a car, food safety, etc.
.
Originally posted by ivanhoeIvanhoe, food safety is a bad example, as food safety laws do not protect people from themselves, but from food processing companies in which poor safety practices could harm consumers without giving them the option of protecting themselves.
If I understand you correctly, society does not have any duty to protect people against themselves, the way parents have a duty to protect their children.
Think about safety belts in a car, food safety, etc.
.