Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.


View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6
Asmodeus
1009 posts

Uber Geek


  #823500 22-May-2013 12:48
Send private message

Klipspringer:
Asmodeus:
Fact is it doesn't kill or even really hurt people in itself (whereas tobacco and alcohol do very much). The harm from cannabis comes because it is illegal and therefore unregulated and supplied by criminals.


Maybe you should tell these guys because it seems you know something they dont:

The British Lung Foundation has commissioned a survey into tobacoo and cannabis usage amongst 1,045 people in Britain, and has found that smoking cannabis presents a much greater risk of lung cancer than does tobacco – 20 times more, in fact





That's a lovely piece of non-peer-reviewed anti-cannabis propaganda you have there from a biased organisation using cherry-picked data :)

Proper peer-reviewed Medline indexed studies from respected medical journals are the only source of good information. Unfortunately, even the majority of those have poor study designs.

In addition to that, cannabis does not have to be smoked, It can be vapourised eaten or used as a tincture. There is no evidence for non-smoked cannabis causing cancer. Any smoke is bad for you, but the frequency and amounts smoked by the typical non-cigarette smoking cannabis user are small.

Here's a few proper studies refuting what you posted:


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16054989

Alcohol. 2005 Apr;35(3):265-75.Epidemiologic review of marijuana use and cancer risk.Hashibe MStraif KTashkin DPMorgenstern HGreenland SZhang ZF.SourceInternational Agency for Research on Cancer, 69008 Lyon, France.
AbstractMarijuana is the most commonly used illegal drug in the United States and is considered by young adults to be the illicit drug with the least risk. On the other hand, marijuana smoke contains several of the same carcinogens and co-carcinogens as the tar from tobacco, raising concerns that smoking of marijuana may be a risk factor for tobacco-related cancers. We reviewed two cohort studies and 14 case-control studies with assessment of the association of marijuana use and cancer risk. In the cohort studies, increased risks of lung or colorectal cancer due to marijuana smoking were not observed, but increased risks of prostate and cervical cancers among non-tobacco smokers, as well as adult-onset glioma among tobacco and non-tobacco smokers, were observed. The 14 case-control studies included four studies on head and neck cancers, two studies on lung cancer, two studies on non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, one study on anal cancer, one study on penile cancer, and four studies on childhood cancers with assessment of parental exposures. Zhang and colleagues reported that marijuana use may increase risk of head and neck cancers in a hospital-based case-control study in the United States, with dose-response relations for both frequency and duration of use. However, Rosenblatt and co-workers reported no association between oral cancer and marijuana use in a population-based case-control study. An eightfold increase in risk among marijuana users was observed in a lung cancer study in Tunisia. However, there was no assessment of the dose response, and marijuana may have been mixed with tobacco. Parental marijuana use during gestation was associated with increased risks of childhood leukemia, astrocytoma, and rhabdomyosarcoma, but dose-response relations were not assessed. In summary, sufficient studies are not available to adequately evaluate marijuana impact on cancerrisk. Several limitations of previous studies include possible underreporting where marijuana use is illegal, small sample sizes, and too few heavy marijuana users in the study sample. Recommendations for future studies are to (1) focus on tobacco-related cancer sites; (2) obtain detailed marijuana exposure assessment, including frequency, duration, and amount of personal use as well as mode of use (smoked in a cigarette, pipe, or bong; taken orally); (3) adjust for tobacco smoking and conduct analyses on nonusers of tobacco; and (4) conduct larger studies, meta-analyses, or pooled analyses to maximize statistical precision and investigate sources of differences in results. Despite the challenges, elucidation of the association between marijuana use and cancer risk is important in weighing the benefits and risks of medical marijuana use and to clarify the impact of marijuana use on public health.




http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18235388

Rev Mal Respir. 2007 Oct;24(8 Pt 2):6S10-5.[Novel epidemiology in lung cancer - non-smokers, women and cannabis].[Article in French]Quoix E.SourceDépartement de pneumologie, Hôpitaux Universitaires, Strasbourg cedex, France. elisabeth.quoix@chru-strasbourg.fr
AbstractActive tobacco-smoking is the main risk factor of developing a lung cancer and the increase in smoking since the end of the sixties among French women partly explains the increase in lung cancer that has been observed in this group recently. However the part of the risk attributable to active tobacco-smoking is less in women than men and other aetiological factors need to be considered. There are some suggestions that females have a higher susceptibility to the carcinogenic effects of tobacco smoke even if the intrinsic risk of developing lung cancer is lower than in males. The incidence of lung cancer in non-smokers seems to be increasing and this may be partly due to the ageing of the general population. This incidence is variable according to continents, non-smokers with lung cancer being more frequent in Asia compared to Europe or North-America with the difference being even more pronounced in females. Histological subtype also differs according to sex and smoking habits. Adenocarcinoma is the most important histological subtype in females but also in the youngest cohorts of lung cancer patients probably linked to the modification of smoking habits (use of filters and blond tobacco). The role of cannabis as a risk factor of lung cancer is difficult to assess as most cannabis smokers are also tobacco-smokers but recent epidemiological studies suggest that cannabis is not carcinogenic.



http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21462790

Prescrire Int. 2011 Jan;20(112):18-23.Adverse effects of cannabis.[No authors listed]AbstractCannabis, Cannabis sativa L., is used to produce a resin that contains high levels of cannabinoids, particularly delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), which are psychoactive substances. Although cannabis use is illegal in France and in many other countries, it is widely used for its relaxing or euphoric effects, especially by adolescents and young adults. What are the adverse effects of cannabis on health? During consumption? And in the long term? Does cannabis predispose users to the development of psychotic disorders? To answer these questions, we reviewed the available evidence using the standard Prescrire methodology. The long-term adverse effects of cannabis are difficult to evaluate. Since and associated substances, with or without the user's knowledge. Tobacco and alcohol consumption, and particular lifestyles and behaviours are often associated with cannabis use. Some traits predispose individuals to the use of psychoactive substances in general. The effects of cannabis are dosedependent.The most frequently report-ed adverse effects are mental slowness, impaired reaction times, and sometimes accentuation of anxiety. Serious psychological disorders have been reported with high levels of intoxication. The relationship between poor school performance and early, regular, and frequent cannabis use seems to be a vicious circle, in which each sustains the other. Many studies have focused on the long-term effects of cannabis on memory, but their results have been inconclusive. There do not * About fifteen longitudinal cohort studies that examined the influence of cannabis on depressive thoughts or suicidal ideation have yielded conflicting results and are inconclusive. Several longitudinal cohort studies have shown a statistical association between psychotic illness and self-reported cannabis use. However, the results are difficult to interpret due to methodological problems, particularly the unknown reliability of self-reported data. It has not been possible to establish a causal relationship in either direction, because of these methodological limitations. In Australia, the marked increase in cannabis use has not been accompanied by an increased incidence of schizophrenia. On the basis of the available data, we cannot reach firm conclusions on whether or not cannabis use causes psychosis. It seems prudent to inform apparently vulnerable individuals that cannabis may cause acute psychotic decompensation, especially at high doses. Users can feel dependent on cannabis, but this dependence is usually psychological. Withdrawal symptoms tend to occur within 48 hours following cessation of regular cannabis use, and include increased irritability, anxiety, nervousness, restlessness, sleep difficulties and aggression. Symptoms subside within 2 to 12 weeks. Driving under the influence of cannabis doubles the risk of causing a fatal road accident. Alcohol consumption plays an even greater role. A few studies and a number of isolated reports suggest that cannabis has a role in the occurrence of cardiovascular adverse effects, especially in patients with coronary heart disease. Numerous case-control studies have investigated the role of cannabis in the incidence of some types of cancer. Its role has not been ruled out, but it is not possible to determine whether the risk is distinct from that of the tobacco with which it is often smoked. Studies that have examined the influence of cannabis use on the clinical course of hepatitis C are inconclusive. Alcohol remains the main toxic agent that hepatitis C patients should avoid. In practice, the adverse effects of low-level, recreational cannabis use are generally minor, although they can apparently be serious in vulnerable individuals. The adverse effects of cannabis appear overall to be less serious than those of alcohol, in terms of neuropsychological and somatic effects, accidents and violence.



http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9358987Clin Rev Allergy Immunol. 1997 Fall;15(3):243-69.Marijuana. Respiratory tract effects.Van Hoozen BECross CE.SourceDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, University of California at Davis, Sacramento 95817, USA.
AbstractDaily marijuana smoking has been clearly shown to have adverse effects on pulmonary function and produce respiratory symptomatology (cough, wheeze, and sputum production) similar to that of tobacco smokers. Based on the tobacco experience, decrements in pulmonary function may be predictive of the future development of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, in the absence of alpha-1-antitrypsin deficiency, the habitual marijuana-only smoker would likely have to smoke 4-5 joints per day for a span of at least 30 yr in order to develop overt manifestations of COPD. The mutagenic/carcinogenic properties of marijuana smoke are also well-established. The potential for induction of laryngeal, oropharyngeal, and possibly bronchogenic carcinoma from marijuana has been documented by several case reports and observational series. Despite this, a relative risk ratio for the development of these tumors has not yet been quantified. Based on a higher frequency of case reports for upper airway cancercompared to bronchogenic carcinoma, marijuana smoking may have a more deleterious effect on the upper respiratory tract. However, this hypothesis remains speculative at best, pending confirmation by longitudinal studies.



http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3520605Pharmacol Rev. 1986 Mar;38(1):1-20.Health aspects of cannabis.Hollister LE.AbstractMarijuana seems firmly established as another social drug in Western countries, regardless of its current legal status. Patterns of use vary widely. As with other social drugs, the pattern of use is critical in determining adverse effects on health. Perhaps the major area of concern about marijuana use is among the very young. Using any drug on a regular basis that alters reality may be detrimental to the psychosocial maturation of young persons. Chronic use of marijuana may stunt the emotional growth of youngsters. Evidence for an amotivational syndrome is largely based on clinical reports; whether marijuana use is a cause or effect is uncertain. A marijuana psychosis, long rumored, has been difficult to prove. No one doubts that marijuana use may aggravate existing psychoses or other severe emotional disorders. Brain damage has not been proved. Physical dependence is rarely encountered in the usual patterns of social use, despite some degree of tolerance that may develop. The endocrine effects of the drug might be expected to delay puberty in prepubertal boys, but actual instances have been rare. As with any material that is smoked, chronic smoking of marijuana will produce bronchitis; emphysema or lung cancer have not yet been documented. Cardiovascular effects of the drug are harmful to those with preexisting heart disease; fortunately the number of users with such conditions is minimal. Fears that the drug might accumulate in the body to the point of toxicity have been groundless. The potential deleterious effects of marijuana use on driving ability seem to be self-evident; proof of such impairment has been more difficult. The drug is probably harmful when taken during pregnancy, but the risk is uncertain. One would be prudent to avoid marijuana during pregnancy, just as one would do with most other drugs not essential to life or well-being. No clinical consequences have been noted from the effects of the drug on immune response, chromosomes, or cell metabolites. Contamination of marijuana by spraying with defoliants has created the clearest danger to health; such attempts to control production should be abandoned. Therapeutic uses for marijuana, THC, or cannabinoid homologs are being actively explored. Only the synthetic homolog, nabilone, has been approved for use to control nausea and vomiting associated with cancer chemotherapy.



On non-smoked cannabis:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18286801

Cannabis sativa L. preparations have been used in medicine for millenia. However, concern over the dangers of abuse led to the banning of the medicinal use of marijuana in most countries in the 1930s. Only recently, marijuana and individual natural and synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonists and antagonists, as well as chemically related compounds, whose mechanism of action is still obscure, have come back to being considered of therapeutic value. However, their use is highly restricted. Despite the mild addiction to cannabis and the possible enhancement of addiction to other substances of abuse, when combined with cannabis, the therapeutic value of cannabinoids is too high to be put aside. Numerous diseases, such as anorexia, emesis, pain, inflammation, multiple sclerosis, neurodegenerative disorders (Parkinson's disease, Huntington's disease, Tourette's syndrome, Alzheimer's disease), epilepsy, glaucoma, osteoporosis, schizophrenia, cardiovascular disorders, cancer, obesity, and metabolic syndrome-related disorders, to name just a few, are being treated or have the potential to be treated by cannabinoid agonists/antagonists/cannabinoid-related compounds. In view of the very low toxicity and the generally benign side effects of this group of compounds, neglecting or denying their clinical potential is unacceptable--instead, we need to work on the development of more selective cannabinoid receptor agonists/antagonists and related compounds, as well as on novel drugs of this family with better selectivity, distribution patterns, and pharmacokinetics, and--in cases where it is impossible to separate the desired clinical action and the psychoactivity--just to monitor these side effects carefully.





Johnk
692 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted
Subscriber

  #823515 22-May-2013 13:19
Send private message

To quote Klipspringer "
Now imagine adding legal cannabis to the above mix, just asking for trouble. Our youth cannot even control their drinking. Do we want to give then a license to be publicly stoned as well?"

I would for sure rather met a stoned guy in public than I would met a drunk guy. You would probably wouldn't even get a boo or a hassle from a stoned teenager in town, compared to a drunk. . . .


 
 
 
 


kiwijunglist
2890 posts

Uber Geek


  #823517 22-May-2013 13:23
Send private message

^ re: above studies, I quickly skimmed over your abstracts.

1st abstract - Suggests that cannabis use is associated with cancer, but recommends further studies due to small numbers and potential confounding. Also recommends looking at dose - response to establish more definite causation

2nd abstract - Has nothing about cannabis apart from a haphazard comment at the end

3rd abstract - States that cannabis usage is associated with psychotic illness, but further studies are needed to associate causation.

4th abstract - Hypothesizes that if marijuana was just as bad as tobacco for causing COPD then a user would have to smoke 4-5 joints daily for ~30 years before someone developed COPD.

5th abstract - Seems to be an opinion piece / discussion

6th abstract - Another opinion piece / discussion, suggesting that oral marijuana may have a role in medical therapy.

Summary of all of the above abstracts

Cannabis use is associated with psychotic illness and cancer.  Further studies are needed to establish definite causation.




HTPC / Home automation (home assistant) enthusiast.


kyhwana2
2469 posts

Uber Geek


  #823521 22-May-2013 13:28
Send private message

Klipspringer:
More  should be done to control the "other highs". New Zealand is one of the only countries in the world that's dumb enough not to criminalize public intoxication. Why we don't is beyond me. One only has to watch an episode of police ten7 to recognizes the consequences of not having this law. 


Off topic for a sec (sorta) but how do you make public intoxication without the "AND being a public nuisance" part? If i'm walking back home from the pub drunk and i'm minding my own business, suddenly i'm breaking the law?


qwerty7

434 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user


  #823530 22-May-2013 13:39
Send private message

Klipspringer:
qwerty7: Cannabis is illegal yet we have synthetic legal highs with who knows what in them, which are causing a whole range of problems and can be purchased anywhere. There is even a legal high called 'crack' which is a white powder and it comes with a glass pipe which you pour the powder in and smoke it like p. How does it make sense that all this cr*p is legal, yet cannabis is illegal?


You start off by saying that cannabis is illegal, and rightly so. You then move on to say that the other highs are legal but yet you also admit that these other highs are causing a whole range of problems?

So legalise cannabis? Thats not an argument. So as to your own admission you actually asking to legalise something which will cause more problems.

Cannabis should remain illegal.

More  should be done to control the "other highs". New Zealand is one of the only countries in the world that's dumb enough not to criminalize public intoxication. Why we don't is beyond me. One only has to watch an episode of police ten7 to recognizes the consequences of not having this law. 

Quote from Wikipedia

In New Zealand, drinking in public is not a crime and instead, local governments must specify that alcohol is banned in an area before it is considered a crime to drink in that location. Being drunk in public is not specifically an offense unless the person who is intoxicated is a public nuisance, in which case they may be dealt with for 'disturbing the peace'. This will usually result in being taken home, or otherwise taken to a police cell until sober.


Now imagine adding legal cannabis to the above mix, just asking for trouble. Our youth cannot even control their drinking. Do we want to give then a license to be publicly stoned as well?

I could find 100 studies that support cannabis legalisation and 100 studies that don't . I don't beleive that there are many unbiased studies as they are made with the purpose of either being for or against cannabis. 

You are misunderstanding what I am saying. I am saying how are these legal highs which cause many problems legal when cannabis which in my opinion is less harmful than these legal highs and causes less problems is illegal. My question is how does that make sense? It doesn't. 

As I said on the first page I do not beleive cannabis should be legal. I do however think it should be decriminalised. I do not agree with a 17/18 year old getting charged for possession of cannabis and getting a criminal charge because they have a tiny in their car. I struggle to see how cannabis is more or less harmful than alcohol, in my opinion it is about the same. 

Anyone who drinks alcohol everyday or gets stoned everyday is stupid and will obviously have problems. Even drinking coca cola on a daily basis will give you problems. 

Where is the line between societal control and freedom?

What is wrong with being drunk in public

If someone wants to feel / experience these things why is that a problem?

If you think cannabis should be illegal do you think alcohol should also be illegal.. why / why not?



 

Asmodeus
1009 posts

Uber Geek


  #823545 22-May-2013 13:55
Send private message

kiwijunglist: ^ re: above studies, I quickly skimmed over your abstracts.

1st abstract - Suggests that cannabis use is associated with cancer, but recommends further studies due to small numbers and potential confounding. Also recommends looking at dose - response to establish more definite causation

2nd abstract - Has nothing about cannabis apart from a haphazard comment at the end

3rd abstract - States that cannabis usage is associated with psychotic illness, but further studies are needed to associate causation.

4th abstract - Hypothesizes that if marijuana was just as bad as tobacco for causing COPD then a user would have to smoke 4-5 joints daily for ~30 years before someone developed COPD.

5th abstract - Seems to be an opinion piece / discussion

6th abstract - Another opinion piece / discussion, suggesting that oral marijuana may have a role in medical therapy.

Summary of all of the above abstracts

Cannabis use is associated with psychotic illness and cancer.  Further studies are needed to establish definite causation.


No sorry, more like.

Cannabis use may be associated with psychotic illness and cancer but larger and better controlled studies are needed to establish statistical significance and eliminate confounding factors.


Water, sunlight, oxygen and food give you cancer mate. Whaddya gonna do? And it should be up to me if I want to use cannabis, not jerk offs like Peter Dunne and other poorly informed crusaders. In fact it is up to me as I have never not been able to obtain it almost immediately whenever I want it and have never had any bad experiences or adverse effects worth mentioning and neither has anyone I know.

And I would rather take the word of a well researched and reviewed Medline indexed opinion piece written by a qualified researcher than a colour pamphlet with pictures of ribbons and dope leaves on it that is obviously designed to push an agenda :)


kiwijunglist
2890 posts

Uber Geek


  #823546 22-May-2013 14:01
Send private message

Asmodeus:

No sorry, more like.

Cannabis use may be associated with psychotic illness and cancer but larger and better controlled studies are needed to establish statistical significance and eliminate confounding factors.


No sorry, I think you don't understand the difference between association and causation...

The abstracts you posted clearly state that cannabis use is associated with psychotic illness and cancer

I think you meant to reply to me with "Cannabis use may cause psychotic illness and cancer" ie. further studies are needed to establish causation (ie, statistical significance, confounding factors etc.)




HTPC / Home automation (home assistant) enthusiast.


 
 
 
 


Jeeves
302 posts

Ultimate Geek


  #823547 22-May-2013 14:02
Send private message

The pro-decriminalisation brigade shouldn't start using alcohol and tobacco as a comparison.

Whilst yes, they are all substances that are taken recreationally - that is where the similarities stop.
Tobacco and alcohol have such a long and sordid history, they are such beasts socialoicallly, politically and historically that it's almost impossible to have a convicing pro-cannabis-legalisation argument that uses them as a comparison.

It's kind of like wanting a lion as a pet. They're cute, carnivorious felines, just like a domestic cat - therefore they should be treated the same as grandma's tiddles.

If we really want to make inroads in the pro-decriminisation debate, we do need to drop the comparisons and argue the merits on their own accord.


Klipspringer
2385 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user


  #823555 22-May-2013 14:19
Send private message

networkn:
Honestly I think you and those who defend the illegality of cannabis (I count myself here) are wasting our time arguing the logic, the people who want it made legal aren't interested in evidence, logic or common sense, I'm gonna leave this thread. Suggest you do likewise.


I have plenty of time today ….

So not going to give in that easily.

Jeeves:
It's ok you don't buy into my way of thinking. But do you believe the current system is actually working?


So because its not working we should allow for it? How about working at fixing the problem. Start off with fixing the youth drinking problems (criminalise public intoxications). In fact criminalise all types of intoxications, alcohol and marijuana.

People still speed on our roads and kill themselves. By using your mentality we should just allow people to speed.

Jeeves: As it stands, it is easier for an under 18 to get weed than it is tobacco. Tobacco has strict access requirements. Weed, does not. I have first hand anecdotal evidence of this. I do not have scientific evidence because it hasn't been studied - however you can not deny that if a 15 year old walked into a dairy, he would be denied ciggerrettes. If he went down the street to the tinny house, they would gladly sell to him. I am going to assume that you likely have never smoked weed and thus been associated with it's users and systems.
I have. The law does not work.


I agree with what you are saying that in certain groups and areas its probably easier to obtain. But I don’t believe it’s the norm for everywhere and with all groups of people.

Legalising it will make it easy for anyone to get, and to get it anywhere. Besides are you implying that marijuana is legalised for under 18’s? The current law does let under 18’s buy Tabaco? But you want under 18’s buying marijuana? Of course its going to be easier for an under 18 to get tobacco somewhere else than at the local dairy.

What exactly are you asking for? How old should someone be to use marijuana?

Jeeves: I totally disagree that the laws currently stops people under the influence from being in public. Being under the influence of weed is very easy to hide. If you think the law as it stands is a deterrence to people from being stoned in public, you are far more naive than I first imagined.


Not sure what you implying? The laws currently does not stop people from being under  influence from being in public. Its perfectly legal unless the council has implemented a no drinking zone.

Being stoned and driving is against the law? Why is that?

Jeeves: I won't say that drug taking is a victimless activity. What I am saying is the law as it stands is not working as it is intended. It's broken. It needs fixing. Making more laws and more penalties isn't the answer.


Who’s making more laws? People are getting convicted of possession of marijuana all the time. Only problem is that they not keeping them locked up for long enough. Here in NZ murderers and rapists get out after a few years. Parents get off with a warning for neglecting their children. There was even a thread here on geekzone a while ago about parents sending their kids to school without lunch. I agree that the problem you highlighting needs to be fixed. Criminals need to be held better accountable in this country and they need should be punished for their crimes instead of the justice system being so light on them.

Johnk: To quote Klipspringer "
Now imagine adding legal cannabis to the above mix, just asking for trouble. Our youth cannot even control their drinking. Do we want to give then a license to be publicly stoned as well?"

I would for sure rather met a stoned guy in public than I would met a drunk guy. You would probably wouldn't even get a boo or a hassle from a stoned teenager in town, compared to a drunk. . . .



Have to agree with this one. But legalising cannabis will add a new level. A drunk stoned guy … A little worse than just a drunk or stoned guy I think.

Klipspringer
2385 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user


  #823562 22-May-2013 14:30
Send private message

kyhwana2:
Klipspringer:
More  should be done to control the "other highs". New Zealand is one of the only countries in the world that's dumb enough not to criminalize public intoxication. Why we don't is beyond me. One only has to watch an episode of police ten7 to recognizes the consequences of not having this law. 


Off topic for a sec (sorta) but how do you make public intoxication without the "AND being a public nuisance" part? If i'm walking back home from the pub drunk and i'm minding my own business, suddenly i'm breaking the law?



Off topic then …

In many other countries yes you could get locked up and could possibly end up with a criminal record.

It’s the difference between going down to the pub… and going  down to the pub and getting totally sloshed.. Not everyone goes down to the pub to get drunk (you do know thats not the norm right?). I have found getting drunk is a New Zealand thing. Part of our culture. The fact that you asked this question just proves to me that you actually have no problem with walking home from a pub drunk.

Try it next time you in the States or many part of Europe and see what happens. Tell the police officer that you were just minding your own business.

nate
6408 posts

Uber Geek

Moderator
Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #823563 22-May-2013 14:31
Send private message

Legalise it.

Same guidelines as alcohol re operating a vehicle and being drunk (or in this case stoned) in public.  18+ only.

I have a fair few friends who are regular users (ah the joys of growing up in South Auckland), most have good jobs and don't fit into the stoner stereotype.   

Ever seen an aggressive stoner? In my experience, they become ridiculously relaxed and get hungry.  Complete opposite of a P user.  Most end up being quite happy go lucky.

I don't think it's a gateway drug.

I also don't buy into the affect on the person or the community.  Plenty of other things (alcohol, smoking, gambling, obesity, loan sharks) that people already legally do to themselves that cause harm.

I feel the police have much better things to concentrate their limited resources on than weed.


/all my 2cents.

Jeeves
302 posts

Ultimate Geek


  #823589 22-May-2013 15:30
Send private message

So because its not working we should allow for it? How about working at fixing the problem. Start off with fixing the youth drinking problems (criminalise public intoxications). In fact criminalise all types of intoxications, alcohol and marijuana.


1) If by youth you mean anyone under the age of 18, then it is already illegal for them to be intoxicated. Problem solved then right?! Yea, nah.
2) You're implying that we should make ANY intoxication illegal? Do you have any idea how.. just... idontevenknowhowto.... For a start - where's the line? Oh sorry grandma, you've had 2 sherries tonight, off to the cells we go!

People still speed on our roads and kill themselves. By using your mentality we should just allow people to speed.


You're kidding yourself if you think that is a good argument. Of course I don't believe that.
Your simplistic suggestion that I believe that any law that isn't working should be repealed totally, is indicitive of your approach to this discussion. You are giving unrreasonable (I still can't get over your suggestion of making any intoxication illegal) suggestions which have no scientific or evidentual fact as to if they would work or not. You're a lock them up and throw away the key kind of guy. We're not in the 1800's anymore I'm afraid.
Also, I am not avoiding your quetion. I just don't believe that it needs spelling out that the laws around driving a 2 tonne hunk of metal amongst thousands of other people vs consuming and posessing a class c substance, are so fundementally different that they are not worth comparing.

I agree with what you are saying that in certain groups and areas its probably easier to obtain. But I don’t believe it’s the norm for everywhere and with all groups of people.

Legalising it will make it easy for anyone to get, and to get it anywhere. Besides are you implying that marijuana is legalised for under 18’s? The current law does let under 18’s buy Tabaco? But you want under 18’s buying marijuana? Of course its going to be easier for an under 18 to get tobacco somewhere else than at the local dairy.

What exactly are you asking for? How old should someone be to use marijuana?


When I said the tinny house I meant they could go to one to buy weed easy - not tobacco. Thought that was obvious, but apparently not. My apologies. But for the record, if marijuana was legalised, then I believe it should be R18, if not R20.


Not sure what you implying? The laws currently does not stop people from being under  influence from being in public. Its perfectly legal unless the council has implemented a no drinking zone.

Being stoned and driving is against the law? Why is that?


Because it's dangerous to other users of the road and the driver him/herself. We're not discussing traffic laws here, we are discussing the merits (or otherwise) of the current possession laws and ways we can fix the current situation.

Jeeves: I won't say that drug taking is a victimless activity. What I am saying is the law as it stands is not working as it is intended. It's broken. It needs fixing. Making more laws and more penalties isn't the answer.


Who’s making more laws?


You are implying that we should make more laws.

People are getting convicted of possession of marijuana all the time. Only problem is that they not keeping them locked up for long enough. Here in NZ murderers and rapists get out after a few years. Parents get off with a warning for neglecting their children. There was even a thread here on geekzone a while ago about parents sending their kids to school without lunch. I agree that the problem you highlighting needs to be fixed. Criminals need to be held better accountable in this country and they need should be punished for their crimes instead of the justice system being so light on them.


I'm not even going to bother arguing with this. You evidently appear to be of the ilk that increasing incarcieration time and making new laws is the answer to everything. You should check out the US - this methodology is working quite well for them I hear. (/sarcasm).

You're not going to change my views, I'm not going to change yours. This discussion has however given me insite into the other side and how inflexiable they are when it comes to options other than laws and prison.

Asmodeus
1009 posts

Uber Geek


  #823591 22-May-2013 15:33
Send private message

kiwijunglist:
Asmodeus:

No sorry, more like.

Cannabis use may be associated with psychotic illness and cancer but larger and better controlled studies are needed to establish statistical significance and eliminate confounding factors.


No sorry, I think you don't understand the difference between association and causation...

The abstracts you posted clearly state that cannabis use is associated with psychotic illness and cancer

I think you meant to reply to me with "Cannabis use may cause psychotic illness and cancer" ie. further studies are needed to establish causation (ie, statistical significance, confounding factors etc.)


They actually say that cannabis use has been reported to be associated with these diseases by crappy studies and the debate is still out due to the crappiness of said crappy studies and that we need less crappy studies to sift out the crap

Asmodeus
1009 posts

Uber Geek


  #823593 22-May-2013 15:36
Send private message

Jeeves: The pro-decriminalisation brigade shouldn't start using alcohol and tobacco as a comparison.

Whilst yes, they are all substances that are taken recreationally - that is where the similarities stop.
Tobacco and alcohol have such a long and sordid history, they are such beasts socialoicallly, politically and historically that it's almost impossible to have a convicing pro-cannabis-legalisation argument that uses them as a comparison.

It's kind of like wanting a lion as a pet. They're cute, carnivorious felines, just like a domestic cat - therefore they should be treated the same as grandma's tiddles.

If we really want to make inroads in the pro-decriminisation debate, we do need to drop the comparisons and argue the merits on their own accord.



Cannabis has a much longer history than tobacco. Popular use of tobacco has only been around for a few hundred years. Cannabis has only been ousted from societal norms for a couple of generations. Whilst some of the comparison are irrelevant, many are

Klipspringer
2385 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user


  #823597 22-May-2013 15:51
Send private message

Jeeves:
I'm not even going to bother arguing with this. You evidently appear to be of the ilk that increasing incarcieration time and making new laws is the answer to everything. You should check out the US - this methodology is working quite well for them I hear. (/sarcasm).


I was in the States earlier this year. California to be exact.
It always leaves me thinking, how  come the youth over there have so much respect for their elders?

How come I see no youth out on the street boozing it up?

Why when I return to Wellington do I need to dodge the puke and broken glass in Coutney place on my early morning walk into the office?

Sure some things in the States are not working but I'm afraid that a hell of a lot is actually working better than here. We can take lessons from them in certain things and they can take some from us.

My point, and the reason why I brought the binge drinking into question is that quiet frankly I don’t believe our youth are mature enough to handle legalizing marijuana.

If we were not such a careless binge drinking nation I would probably be all for legalizing it.

 

 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic





News »

Huawei launches IdeaHub Pro in New Zealand
Posted 27-Oct-2020 16:41


Southland-based IT specialist providing virtual services worldwide
Posted 27-Oct-2020 15:55


NASA discovers water on sunlit surface of Moon
Posted 27-Oct-2020 08:30


Huawei introduces new features to Petal Search, Maps and Docs
Posted 26-Oct-2020 18:05


Nokia selected by NASA to build first ever cellular network on the Moon
Posted 21-Oct-2020 08:34


Nanoleaf enhances lighting line with launch of Triangles and Mini Triangles
Posted 17-Oct-2020 20:18


Synology unveils DS16211+
Posted 17-Oct-2020 20:12


Ingram Micro introduces FootfallCam to New Zealand channel
Posted 17-Oct-2020 20:06


Dropbox adopts Virtual First working policy
Posted 17-Oct-2020 19:47


OPPO announces Reno4 Series 5G line-up in NZ
Posted 16-Oct-2020 08:52


Microsoft Highway to a Hundred expands to Asia Pacific
Posted 14-Oct-2020 09:34


Spark turns on 5G in Auckland
Posted 14-Oct-2020 09:29


AMD Launches AMD Ryzen 5000 Series Desktop Processors
Posted 9-Oct-2020 10:13


Teletrac Navman launches integrated multi-camera solution for transport and logistics industry
Posted 8-Oct-2020 10:57


Farmside hits 10,000 RBI customers
Posted 7-Oct-2020 15:32









Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.


Support Geekzone »

Our community of supporters help make Geekzone possible. Click the button below to join them.

Support Geezone on PressPatron



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.