EPThttp://www.health.gov.au/internet/drugstrategy/publishing.nsf/Content/34F55AF632F67B70CA2573F60005D42B/$File/mono64.pdf
Should weed be legalized? - Page 58
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Azzur
Australia6259 Posts
http://www.health.gov.au/internet/drugstrategy/publishing.nsf/Content/34F55AF632F67B70CA2573F60005D42B/$File/mono64.pdf | ||
|
J_Slim
United States199 Posts
And if I'm causin no harm, it shouldn't bother you Your choice is who you choose to be And if you're causin no harm, then you're alright with me | ||
|
kidcrash
United States620 Posts
On September 07 2012 14:34 Azzur wrote: The problem with this particular issue, is that there are many different "grey positions", and not all of them overlap. My issue is that marijuana, along with other substances, places strain on the health care system. If ppl come here claiming that marijuana will have no impact on the health system, then you are wrong. There are many people in this thread who argue that govts shouldn't be allowed to tell others what they should be doing. Many argue that govts are "picking sides" by allowing dangerous substances (tobacco, alcohol) but banning other substances (marijuana). I also agree that this is double standards. However, I can see the effects of substance abuse (not just marijuana but others as well) and the costs to society. And the way health is setup at the moment, the costs are beared by society not the individual. I don't want the legalisation of marijuana to be a slippery slope where other (more destructive drugs) are allowed in the future. However, as I mentioned earlier, if the costs are paid by the individual, then I believe people should have the right to live how the want to. Except people don't go to the ER for marijuana and I've yet to see any (non-flawed) statistics that prove otherwise. Maybe I've heard of one or two people in the whole country that go to the ER for a collapsed lung after taking ridiculously excessive hits of hash oil concentrate. These people are idiots who take smoke inhalation to an extreme on a daily basis and make up less than 0.00001% of the cannabis smoking population. On the other hand marijuana has numerous benefits including relieving pain and stimulating appetite in patients with cancer and HIV. According to cancer.org: "As of 2012, there are reports online suggesting that marijuana oil or “hemp” oil can cure cancer, as well as diabetes, ulcers, arthritis, migraines, insomnia, infections, and many other diseases." Source: http://www.cancer.org/Treatment/TreatmentsandSideEffects/ComplementaryandAlternativeMedicine/HerbsVitaminsandMinerals/marijuana I'd be willing to bet that unhealthy and fatty foods are probably hundreds of times more likely to cause health risks than cannabis consumption. | ||
|
nunez
Norway4003 Posts
On September 07 2012 14:43 Azzur wrote: A study in Australia to the costs of alcohol abuse: http://www.health.gov.au/internet/drugstrategy/publishing.nsf/Content/34F55AF632F67B70CA2573F60005D42B/$File/mono64.pdf from the Executive Summary: 'As a result of revisions to the underlying epidemiological information concerning the health effects of alcohol, it is not possible to make a comparison over time of alcohol costs.' 'Consumption of alcohol had a positive effect on the federal budget but negative effects on state budgets, while tobacco consumption had positive effects on both federal and state budgets. Since illicit drugs yield no tax revenue directly (while causing a reduction in general tax revenues) illicit drug abuse had a negative effect upon both federal and state budgets.' i'm not sure what point of yours this study proves. can your write it out for me? i don't feel like reading past the summary. i feel that what you should be arguing is that the cost of keeping it illegal would be less than that of making it legal! which i thought was a pretty one-sided argument (not in your favor). but i could be wrong. edit: fml. | ||
|
Zerg.Zilla
Hungary5029 Posts
On September 07 2012 14:47 J_Slim wrote: My choice is what I choose to do And if I'm causin no harm, it shouldn't bother you Your choice is who you choose to be And if you're causin no harm, then you're alright with me You,i like you...well done sir,well done!  | ||
|
Intr3pid
Switzerland336 Posts
| ||
|
Big-t
Austria1350 Posts
On September 07 2012 17:47 Intr3pid wrote: Why is there no poll for this question in the OP? Would love to know what the majority of TLers think on this subject. Because it´s hard so answer this question with a simple "Yes" or "No" Edit: Totally free weed consume can digress into tons of addictions and deaths ( Not directly but I guess the following consequences won´t be funny). As long as there is no limitation or restriction I see no future for legalizing weed. | ||
|
zanga
659 Posts
On September 07 2012 14:47 J_Slim wrote: My choice is what I choose to do And if I'm causin no harm, it shouldn't bother you Your choice is who you choose to be And if you're causin no harm, then you're alright with me Strictly looking at physical effects on the body while being high (and not behavioural resolving around obsession around weed to so speak): What if I get high, decide to drive my car somewhere and run over a 7 year old kid? I know, yes, alcohol is legal, but is it not bad to allow additional potentially fatal substances? Besides, weed is much more potent and acts directly compared to alcohol (which usually tries to make you throw up first). It's NOT a harmless! | ||
|
anycolourfloyd
Australia524 Posts
On September 07 2012 18:13 zanga wrote: Strictly looking at physical effects on the body while being high (and not behavioural resolving around obsession around weed to so speak): What if I get high, decide to drive my car somewhere and run over a 7 year old kid? I know, yes, alcohol is legal, but is it not bad to allow additional potentially fatal substances? Besides, weed is much more potent and acts directly compared to alcohol (which usually tries to make you throw up first). Or... if you smoked it once and then have a flashback while being a bus driver or a taxi driver or hell, even an air plane pilot potentially killing hundreds of lives (and so on)....? It's NOT a harmless! what if you get a pilot who is jacking off while trying to land a plane? hundreds of lives at risk!!! make masturbating illegal. you can come to a point at which human stupidity can render ANY activity dangerous. instituting laws to protect the stupid from themselves will eventually reach the point where free choice is eventually completely eliminated, because stupidity will always find a way. | ||
|
darkscream
Canada2310 Posts
On September 07 2012 18:13 zanga wrote: Strictly looking at physical effects on the body while being high (and not behavioural resolving around obsession around weed to so speak): What if I get high, decide to drive my car somewhere and run over a 7 year old kid? I know, yes, alcohol is legal, but is it not bad to allow additional potentially fatal substances? Besides, weed is much more potent and acts directly compared to alcohol (which usually tries to make you throw up first). Or... if you smoked it once and then have a flashback while being a bus driver or a taxi driver or hell, even an air plane pilot potentially killing hundreds of lives (and so on)....? It's NOT a harmless! I'm pretty sure you've never smoked weed before, because you seem to have no idea what the effect is. You don't lose any coordination, you don't hallucinate/have flashbacks, pretty much the only argument you could make is that it can cause concentration problems in some (but others, focus better while high). If you get high and run over a 7 year old kid, you probably would have hit him anyways if you were sober, because people who are high are extra careful/paranoid/slow (as opposed to drunks, who are reckless, uncoordinated and quick to anger). Now i'm not making an argument for impaired driving, but I'd trust someone stoned to drive more than someone who is addicted to text messaging or eating while they drive, let alone someone who has been drinking. Please don't make arguments about weed if you haven't used it/have any idea how it affects people. | ||
|
Kickboxer
Slovenia1308 Posts
| ||
|
Big-t
Austria1350 Posts
On September 07 2012 18:13 zanga wrote: Strictly looking at physical effects on the body while being high (and not behavioural resolving around obsession around weed to so speak): What if I get high, decide to drive my car somewhere and run over a 7 year old kid? I know, yes, alcohol is legal, but is it not bad to allow additional potentially fatal substances? Besides, weed is much more potent and acts directly compared to alcohol (which usually tries to make you throw up first). Or... if you smoked it once and then have a flashback while being a bus driver or a taxi driver or hell, even an air plane pilot potentially killing hundreds of lives (and so on)....? It's NOT a harmless! Flashback? please we are talking about weed. Not optics. | ||
|
mynameisgreat11
599 Posts
On September 07 2012 13:48 Azzur wrote: I looked at some studies: http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/drug-related-hospital-emergency-room-visits As I said, weed already places strain on the health system. I also don't dispute alcohol, tobacco and perscription drugs are just as dangerous. However, what I'm disputing is adding more allowable dangerous substances because in the end, the taxpayer will be ones footing the bill. The reality is that people who abuse substances end up in emergency departments and are treated. I wish they will bear the costs of that. People who engage in disorderly conduct in public because of drunkeness, being high, etc, should be fined appropriately. Taxation doesn't work because if it's high enough, people will just grow their own. How will a emergency department distinguish between those who have paid and those who haven't? If you're arguing that people should bear the costs for "substance abuse" hospital visits, then I'm ok with legalisation. Let me reiterate something I have mentioned in several of my earlier posts, which you ignored. IF MARIJUANA IS LEGAL IT CAN BE TAXED. You won't be personally shouldering the burden of anybody. Marijuana use is already widespread; if its legal, its use will be something the government can profit from. Your source is incredibly biased, but more than that, is vague and meaningless. "376,567 ED visists due to marijuana", with no mention of how information of how the drug was involved, what health problems it caused, or what treatment was. This thread has already degraded into people posting studies on both sides of the issues, of which there are many. The point is, again, it doesn't matter. If you assume the very worst about pot's health effects, its a fact that it is less dangerous than alcohol, cigarettes, prescription drugs, and red meat. There are zero deaths recorded in the history of time from a marijuana overdose. Millions die every year from booze, cigs, prescription drugs, and unhealthy food. And I'll say it once more in this very post, so maybe you acknowledge it this time. If marijuana is legal, it can be taxed. Right now, it is still used widely, but the people making the money are drug dealers. Governments could be putting millions into their pockets through legalization. | ||
|
mynameisgreat11
599 Posts
On September 07 2012 18:13 zanga wrote: Strictly looking at physical effects on the body while being high (and not behavioural resolving around obsession around weed to so speak): What if I get high, decide to drive my car somewhere and run over a 7 year old kid? I know, yes, alcohol is legal, but is it not bad to allow additional potentially fatal substances? Besides, weed is much more potent and acts directly compared to alcohol (which usually tries to make you throw up first). It's NOT a harmless! People already drive high. Current laws punish you equally for smoking as they do for driving while stoned. If anything, legalization would show a decrease in stoned driving as it could be prosecuted more aggressively. | ||
|
mynameisgreat11
599 Posts
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1311782/ - Western Journal of Medicine study of health care use by frequent pot smokers who don't smoke tobacco. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1311802/ - Western Journal of Medicine study of health effects of frequent marijuana use. All of these studies are irrelevant to legalization, but just something for those equating pot use to alcohol/cigarette/prescription drug/red meat consumption to contemplate. | ||
|
Matkap
Spain627 Posts
On September 07 2012 21:06 mynameisgreat11 wrote: People already drive high. Current laws punish you equally for smoking as they do for driving while stoned. If anything, legalization would show a decrease in stoned driving as it could be prosecuted more aggressively. I assure you it is much more dangerous to drive on pills that on weed, and a LOT of people drive on pills | ||
|
mynameisgreat11
599 Posts
On September 07 2012 21:25 Matkap wrote: I assure you it is much more dangerous to drive on pills that on weed, and a LOT of people drive on pills Agreed. | ||
|
Pulimuli
Sweden2766 Posts
On September 07 2012 18:13 zanga wrote: Strictly looking at physical effects on the body while being high (and not behavioural resolving around obsession around weed to so speak): What if I get high, decide to drive my car somewhere and run over a 7 year old kid? I know, yes, alcohol is legal, but is it not bad to allow additional potentially fatal substances? Besides, weed is much more potent and acts directly compared to alcohol (which usually tries to make you throw up first). It's NOT a harmless! If you smoke weed and drive your car you're an idiot who deserves to be punished. Same with drinking and driving | ||
|
Rassy
Netherlands2308 Posts
Unfortunatly in dutch, | ||
|
sluggaslamoo
Australia4494 Posts
On September 07 2012 11:08 Barteh wrote: I don't think you understand how this works; because marijuana is so easy to get and is the lowest on the bad-ness scale it functions as a gateway drug. People smoke it because it makes them feel good. Once they realize it's that easy to feel good about something, they'll want to feel even better. Of course this doesn't go for everybody, but I can assure you there are plenty of people who don't realize what harm they're causing themselves. Making it legal doesn't change anything about the fact that it's the first step on that ladder of feeling good for a while, under the influence. My mother runs a sort of shelter for people that are legally handicapped, most often through very low IQ. Most of them are completely hooked on marijuana, spending 100 euros a week easily while not working for any of that money. If they don't get their share of weed for the day they freak out completely. It might not instantly get them addicted after a one time use, but once the addiction is in place it is just as hard as any to get rid of. Also, if you think that legalizing marijuana will get rid of all the home growers and dealers, you should look at alcohol. To this day people make their own alcohol because it's cheaper, even though it's illegal without all the proper licensing. The problem is way more complicated than most people realize. Actually you don't know how it works. Its a gateway drug because the same dealers sell other drugs too. If you had to buy caffeine from a dealer, the same thing would happen. On September 07 2012 13:48 Azzur wrote: I looked at some studies: http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/drug-related-hospital-emergency-room-visits As I said, weed already places strain on the health system. I also don't dispute alcohol, tobacco and perscription drugs are just as dangerous. However, what I'm disputing is adding more allowable dangerous substances because in the end, the taxpayer will be ones footing the bill. The reality is that people who abuse substances end up in emergency departments and are treated. I wish they will bear the costs of that. People who engage in disorderly conduct in public because of drunkeness, being high, etc, should be fined appropriately. Taxation doesn't work because if it's high enough, people will just grow their own. How will a emergency department distinguish between those who have paid and those who haven't? If you're arguing that people should bear the costs for "substance abuse" hospital visits, then I'm ok with legalisation. Loolllllll. I have no idea why you would ever go to hospital for smoking weed. Also there are no long term effects of THC that would ever make you end up in a hospital. EDIT: Only thing I can think of is a collapsed lung or cancer due to smoke, but you don't need to inhale smoke to get high. | ||
| ||
