Do you support Marijuana Legalization?

[Felch]

Inhaling smoke is bad for you, but as Doc mentioned, there's been no real large scale study. In the absence of evidence, a free society should always err on the side of personal liberty. Besides, the cancer risks of smoking are no excuse for criminalizing cannabis confections.

[Dr Strangelove]

If we had known what tobacco does to human beings, would it everhave been legal to begin with? I think not. Actually there was a time when tobacco was illegal throughout most of the world (that mattered). Before the American revolution tobacco was illegal in France, the Netherlands, the Holy Roman Empire, and the Hapsburg dominions. When the British brought tobacco to Europe the monarchs of the continent sampled their wares and declared "you're not selling this s**t in my realm!" Also, Britain's relations on the continent were at an all time low at the end of the Seven Years War. After the American Revolution, in deference to their American ally who gave them a chance to whip those nasty Brits, most of the nations which had banned tobacco opened their markets. But I digress.
Remember second hand smoke. You may declare your liberty to poison your own lungs, but you are not free to poison mine. Just because tobacco slipped through doesn't mean that marijuana should.

[Felch]

While you've got a valid point about the inherent dangers of inhaling smoke, I feel that a free society should consider other factors besides paternalism. Just because something is unhealthy doesn't mean it should be illegal.

Of course, there's no risk of second hand smoke from pot brownies and similar products. Would you support a multi-billion dollar war on drugs just to keep people from being able to eat pot brownies?

[Hauldren Collider]

If the multibillion dollar war on drugs were actually doing something to prevent teenagers from smoking pot, yes. But it isn't, so no, I don't.

[Dr Strangelove]

While you've got a valid point about the inherent dangers of inhaling smoke, I feel that a free society should consider other factors besides paternalism. Just because something is unhealthy doesn't mean it should be illegal.

Well OK, let's just do away with all that touchy-feely liberally do-goodery health and environmental regulatory crap eh? You know, I just happen to own a nuclear medical supply company and that vacant lot in your neighborhood, so I think I've found a perfect place to dump my waste. My property, none of your business what I do there, don't go getting all paternalistic on me. I didn't tell your kids to come onto my proerty and smear themselves with that glowing green goo. It's your fault they're dead. It was up to you to teach them not to wander onto other people's property and to not paint themselves with stuff they don't know about.

Of course, there's no risk of second hand smoke from pot brownies and similar products. Would you support a multi-billion dollar war on drugs just to keep people from being able to eat pot brownies?

It's still choc o'block full of carcinogens when it's baked into brownies. You are aware that there have been plenty of non-medicinal products removed from the market even with legal penalties? Believe it or not, you can't bring meat tainted with Mad Cow disease into this country even if you promise to just eat it your self. Now doesn't that beat all?

[Dauphin]

Believe it or not, you can't bring meat tainted with Mad Cow disease into this country even if you promise to just eat it your self. Now doesn't that beat all?

And as a consequence haggis smuggling into the US was quite common, especially in the weeks running up to January 25. They lifted the ban though.

[Felch]

You're comparing weed smoke to nuclear waste? That's pretty damn desperate.

Besides, how do you know that a pot brownie is carcinogenic if, and these are your own words, "The human epidemiological studies that have been conducted so far have been so small and so poorly designed that they're worthless." Based on worthless studies, you want to throw people in prison? And if there have been studies that did indicate that marijuana was "choc o'block full of carcinogens," why isn't the government trumpeting these studies in their propaganda?

I just did a quick check at the NIDA website:

Numerous studies have shown marijuana smoke to contain carcinogens and to be an irritant to the lungs. In fact, marijuana smoke contains 50-70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than tobacco smoke. Marijuana users usually inhale more deeply and hold their breath longer than tobacco smokers do, which further increase the lungs' exposure to carcinogenic smoke. Marijuana smokers show dysregulated growth of epithelial cells in their lung tissue, which could lead to cancer; however, a recent case-controlled study found no positive associations between marijuana use and lung, upper respiratory, or upper digestive tract cancers. Thus, the link between marijuana smoking and these cancers remains unsubstantiated at this time.

They mention that the smoke contains carcinogenic hydrocarbons, but there's nothing on the site about cannabis itself being carcinogenic. Burning things in general creates carcinogens, even barbecued meat can contain carcinogens. Do you have a source to support the contention that cannabis foods would have the same health risks of smoking?

Back to the nuclear waste hyperbole, should outdoor grilling be prohibited because the smoke releases carcinogens?

[Cort Haus]

You're comparing weed smoke to nuclear waste? That's pretty damn desperate.

QFT

[C0ckney]

You know, I just happen to own a nuclear medical supply company and that vacant lot in your neighborhood, so I think I've found a perfect place to dump my waste. My property, none of your business what I do there, don't go getting all paternalistic on me. I didn't tell your kids to come onto my proerty and smear themselves with that glowing green goo. It's your fault they're dead. It was up to you to teach them not to wander onto other people's property and to not paint themselves with stuff they don't know about.

as others have said that's pretty weak.

i'm still waiting for your evidence that people's habits with regard to marijuana would 'certainly change' if it were legalised.

[N35t0r]

OH, they would... They'd probably stop going to the shadier areas of town to buy weed, for starters...

[Elok]

In Doc's defense, I don't think he intended to compare weed smoke and nuclear waste as such, only to use an admittedly absurd example to establish a need for some level of government "paternalism." With that said, just don't smoke the damned stuff in public (it's not really addictive so that shouldn't be a problem), and don't do it with kids in the room if you don't want CPS taking them. It's not going to be the obnoxious nuisance that cigarettes are.

[Solomwi]

Tort law provides a mechanism, albeit imperfect, to address the externalities in Doc's nuclear waste example. Compared to second-hand smoke, it would be easy to know which problems were attributable to which nuclear waste yard and address them through private legal action.

[Dr Strangelove]

How about the fact that tobacco usage wasn't anywhere near as prevalent or as massive as it became in the early to mid 20th century until someone invented the mass produced pre-rolled cigarette? Factory rolled cigarettes were much cheaper than cigars or pipes. If you make mass consumption easy you will get mass consumption. If marijuana becomes legal and cheaper consumption will increase.

[giblets]

How about the fact that tobacco usage wasn't anywhere near as prevalent or as massive as it became in the early to mid 20th century until someone invented the mass produced pre-rolled cigarette? Factory rolled cigarettes were much cheaper than cigars or pipes. If you make mass consumption easy you will get mass consumption. If marijuana becomes legal and cheaper consumption will increase.

So tax it.

[Dr Strangelove]

Marijuana smokers show dysregulated growth of epithelial cells in their lung tissue, which could lead to cancer; however, a recent case-controlled study found no positive associations between marijuana use and lung, upper respiratory, or upper digestive tract cancers. Thus, the link between marijuana smoking and these cancers remains unsubstantiated at this time.

Carcinogenesis generally requires both exposure and time. Currently we think that the induction of most tumors requires serial mutations that alter the genes that code for proteins that protect the genome in addition to alterations of genes that regulate cell replication and the ability to move around. Carcinogenesis consists of a series of steps that progress over time. As I said above, since the bulk of marijuana smoking occurs when people are in their teens and twenties you're less likely to see tumors develop in marijuana smokers. It's well establisherd that in people whoi quit smoking the burden of cancer risk declines with time, though there is always at least some additional risk. The ability to pick up that additional risk requires a much larger study population than any of the studies of marijuana smokers conducted so far.