It's funny, every time I discuss legalization with people, it ends like this. You're on thin ice, obviously avoiding my questions. These answers of yours are completely irrelevant to this discussion.
That a drug may have negative side effects has absolutely nothing to do with this, a legalisation won't change that. Why legalize?
The drug war forces addicts to support their habits by crimes that make the cities more dangerous and less livable. Businesses that might provide jobs and investment, and dedicated teachers and residents with skills that might have contributed to the community have been frightened away.
The drug war puts the blame for the nation's ills on the poor and the dark-skinned, reducing still further society's concern for their plight.
The drug war furthers the spread of AIDS, which is currently decimating inner cities. Clean needle exchanges could help even while drugs remain illegal, but criminalization keeps addicts from health services and forces many into prostitution, both of which spread HIV infection.
The strictest narcotics legislation in the United States was the Rockefeller Drug Law of the early 1970s with high mandatory minimum sentences, including life imprisonment for selling or possessing more than a fraction of an ounce of heroin, even for 16 year olds. As one study summarized the results:
"So far as we can tell, it caused essentially no decrease in heroin activity, but did lead to a drop in the number of heroin offenders arrested and convicted, a considerable increase in the court and correctional resources necessary to process those apprehended, and a significant increase in the overcrowding of the state's prison system"
Please answer my questions:
1. Why should we hold on to the current drug prohibition laws?
2. Considering all the resources governments use on fighting drugs today - with no results - why would this change in the future when it's worsening every year?
i think i've answered that already. Even drugs that provide therapeutic benefits aren't legal without prescription. I've seen patients in extreme pain, come completely high with an injection of morphine. Doesnt mean it should be leglised for general public use because of its feel good factor.
As for crime, i dont see how legalising drugs, users are suddenly gonna be able to afford it or see the errors of their ways and feed their habit legally. You have no proof that legalisation of drugs will prevent the spread of aids and prostitution. As far as i know there are needle exchange programmes in the UK (http://www.welcome-solihull.co.uk/nx.htm this is my local one) , and just because addicts have to put a bit of effort for this we have to legalise drugs so it can be done on their doorstep?
Government are putting resources into all sorts of programmes. If their was another terrorist attack in the UK, i wouldn't say lets cut all funding to counter-terrorism measures.
1) Governments cant on one hand give out warnings about using a drug and then say have a try on the other,
They do with Nicotinne, and they quite happily spend the tax revenue that it generates also.
Fact: All drugs could be controled better and made safer by being legal, there is ways and methods this could be done, but only by being made legal the world over.
Fact: The taxable revenue generated could greatly improve our education and health service's, giving children a better education on why taking such things would damage them and why there lives would be better without them.
Creating a better health service to rehabilitate problematic users, criminals etc, etc.
And before all those against start with the "You would say that with a name like that" etc, etc bullshit, I have not smoked the stuff in 3 years, I dont even drink caffeine.
I'm also a psychology and counselling student, I have socialized in those circles and been amongst that community, the few that abuse would be helped this way, not their addictions and problems fed.
Still believe the fear fed propaganda all you like, drugs are not going away by being illegal, and that's exactly how the governments and leaders of this world like it.
They do with Nicotinne, and they quite happily spend the tax revenue that it generates also.
Fact: All drugs could be controled better and made safer by being legal, there is ways and methods this could be done, but only by being made legal the world over.
Fact: The taxable revenue generated could greatly improve our education and health service's, giving children a better education on why taking such things would damage them and why there lives would be better without them.
Creating a better health service to rehabilitate problematic users, criminals etc, etc.
And before all those against start with the "You would say that with a name like that" etc, etc bullshit, I have not smoked the stuff in 3 years, I dont even drink caffeine.
I'm also a psychology and counselling student, I have socialized in those circles and been amongst that community, the few that abuse would be helped this way, not their addictions and problems fed.
Still believe the fear fed propaganda all you like, drugs are not going away by being illegal, and that's exactly how the governments and leaders of this world like it.
i made the point before that if cigarettes were invented now, they too would be banned substances, i have no doubt about that.
Also i dont thing you can legalise pot and then put taxes on it. That will just keep a black market of legal untaxed marijuana being sold.
The argument that drugs arent going away by being illegal, therefore the argument needs to rethink what can be done to help those rather than punish those that feel a need to take drugs. I dont think legalising it would help at all. I remember watching a comedian in the UK pretending to be a dutch policeman and saying "we used to have a problem with burgulary, till we legalised it"
i made the point before that if cigarettes were invented now, they too would be banned substances, i have no doubt about that.
Also i dont thing you can legalise pot and then put taxes on it. That will just keep a black market of legal untaxed marijuana being sold.
The argument that drugs arent going away by being illegal, therefore the argument needs to rethink what can be done to help those rather than punish those that feel a need to take drugs. I dont think legalising it would help at all. I remember watching a comedian in the UK pretending to be a dutch policeman and saying "we used to have a problem with burgulary, till we legalised it"
There is a black market for most things legal, that is unavoidable, and I think taxing these things would work, for all there is a black market for alcohol and nicotinne, the govornment still generates a massive revenue from legal sales of these things.
I have three children, when I grew up I started smoking weed and took my first acid trips at the age of 13, my eldest son is now 14 I also have a daughter who is 9 and a little toddler aged 2, I would feel a lot safer for my children if drugs were more controled, I have lived that life and know how easily accesible drugs are at a young age.
There's dealers that pray on kids, legalisation could take a massive percentage of that away, there is ways that those substances could be sold in secure pharmacy's/clubs where the person buying the substance has to take it before they can leave, there are ways that those users would have to register and sign a sheet to say that they accept the consequences and responsability of their actions while under the influence of said substance.
Because to me what it comes down to is personal choice and responsability, if someone wants to take something, as long as they dont do anything to harm another human being or cause damage to anothers property, then that is their choice after all it is their life.
"The available evidence suggests that removal of the prohibition against possession itself (decriminalization) does not increase cannabis use. ... This prohibition inflicts harms directly and is costly. Unless it can be shown that the removal of criminal penalties will increase use of other harmful drugs, ... it is difficult to see what society gains."
- Evaluating alternative cannabis regimes. British Journal of Psychiatry. February 2001.
"In sum, there is little evidence that decriminalization of marijuana use necessarily leads to a substantial increase in marijuana use."
- National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine (IOM). 1999. Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base. National Academy Press: Washington, D.C., 102.
"The Law Revision Commission has examined laws from other states that have reduced penalties for small amounts of marijuana and the impact of those laws in those states. ... Studies of [those] states found (1) expenses for arrest and prosecution of marijuana possession offenses were significantly reduced, (2) any increase in the use of marijuana in those states was less that increased use in those states that did not decrease their penalties and the largest proportionate increase occurred in those states with the most severe penalties, and (3) reducing the penalties for marijuana has virtually no effect on either choice or frequency of the use of alcohol or illegal 'harder' drugs such as cocaine."
- Connecticut Law Review Commission. 1997. Drug Policy in Connecticut and Strategy Options: Report to the Judiciary Committee of the Connecticut General Assembly. State Capitol: Hartford.
"There is no strong evidence that decriminalization affects either the choice or frequency of use of drugs, either legal (alcohol) or illegal (marijuana and cocaine)."
- C. Thies and C. Register. 1993. Decriminalization of Marijuana and the Demand for Alcohol, Marijuana and Cocaine. The Social Sciences Journal 30: 385-399.
"In contrast with marijuana use, rates of other illicit drug use among ER [emergency room] patients were substantially higher in states that did not decriminalize marijuana use. The lack of decriminalization might have encouraged greater use of drugs that are even more dangerous than marijuana."
- K. Model. 1993. The effect of marijuana decriminalization on hospital emergency room episodes: 1975-1978. Journal of the American Statistical Association 88: 737-747, as cited by the National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine in Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base. [6]
"The available evidence indicates that the decriminalization of marijuana possession had little or no impact on rates of use. Although rates of marijuana use increased in those U.S. states [that] reduced maximum penalties for possession to a fine, the prevalence of use increased at similar or higher rates in those states [that] retained more severe penalties. There were also no discernible impacts on the health care systems. On the other hand, the so-called 'decriminalization' measures did result in substantial savings in the criminal justice system."
- E. Single. 1989. The Impact of Marijuana Decriminalization: An Update. Journal of Public Health 10: 456-466.
"Overall, the preponderance of the evidence which we have gathered and examined points to the conclusion that decriminalization has had virtually no effect either on the marijuana use or on related attitudes and beliefs about marijuana use among American young people. The data show no evidence of any increase, relative to the control states, in the proportion of the age group who ever tried marijuana. In fact, both groups of experimental states showed a small, cumulative net decline in annual prevalence after decriminalization."
- L. Johnson et al. 1981. Marijuana Decriminalization: The Impact on Youth 1975-1980. Monitoring the Future, Occasional Paper Series, paper 13, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan: Ann Arbor.
"Consumption appears to be unaffected, or affected only minimally by decriminalization, and most people believe that it has had little impact. Further, decriminalization has proven to be administratively and economically advantageous for state law enforcement efforts."
- D. Maloff. 1981. Review of the effects of decriminalization of marijuana. Contemporary Drug Problems Fall: 307-322.
"Levels of use tended to be higher in the decriminalization states both before and after the changes in law. tates which moderated penalties after 1974 (essentially a group of decriminalization states) did indeed experience an increase in rates of marijuana use, among both adolescents (age 12-17) and adults (18 or older). However, the increase in marijuana use was even greater in other states and the largest proportionate increase occurred in those states with the most severe penalties."
- W. Saveland and D. Bray. 1980. American Trends in Cannabis Use Among States with Different Changing Legal Regimes. Bureau of Tobacco Control and Biometrics, Health and Welfare: Ottawa, as cited by E. Single in The Impact of Marijuana Decriminalization: an Update.
"The reduction in penalties for possession of marijuana for personal use does not appear to have been a factor in people's decision to use or not use the drug."
- California State Office of Narcotics and Drug Abuse. 1977. A First Report on the Impact of California's New Marijuana Law. State Capitol: Sacramento.
"The number of [hospital] admissions directly due to marijuana use decreased from ... 1970 to ... 1975. In the same time, the number of admissions for drug abuse of all types, except alcohol, [also] decreased. ... The following conclusion seem warranted: medically significant problems from the use of marijuana have decreased coincident with decriminalizing marijuana."
- P. Blachly. 1976. Effects of Decriminalization of Marijuana in Oregon. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 282: 405-415.
"Data collected at four points in time in Ann Arbor [Michigan] and the control communities (which underwent no change in marijuana penalties) indicated that marijuana use was not affected by the change in law [to decriminalization.]"
- R. Stuart et al. 1976. Penalty for the Possession of Marijuana: An Analysis of Some of its Concomitants. Contemporary Drug Problems 5: 553, as cited by E. Single in The Impact of Marijuana Decriminalization: an Update.
International Studies
"The Dutch experience, together with those of a few other countries with more modest policy changes, provides a moderately good empirical case that removal of criminal prohibitions on cannabis possession (decriminalization) will not increase the prevalence of marijuana or any other illicit drug; the argument for decriminalization is thus strong."
- R. MacCoun and P. Reuter. 2001. Evaluating alternative cannabis regimes. British Journal of Psychiatry 178: 123-128.
"Fear of apprehension, fear of being imprisoned, the cost of cannabis or the difficulty in obtaining cannabis do not appear to exert a strong influence on decisions about cannabis consumption. ... Those factors may limit cannabis use among frequent cannabis users, but there is no evidence, as of yet, to support this conjecture."
- D. Weatherburn and C. Jones. 2001. Does prohibition deter cannabis use? New South Wales (Australia) Bureau of Crime Statistics: Sydney.
"The available data indicate that decriminalization measures substantially reduced enforcement costs, yet had little or no impact on rates of use in the United States. In the South Australian community, none of the studies have found an impact in cannabis use which is attributable to the introduction of the Cannabis Expiation Scheme [decriminalization.]"
- E. Single et al. 2000. The Impact of Cannabis Decriminalisation in Australia and the United States. Journal of Public Health Policy 21: 157-186.
"There is no evidence to date that the CEN [decriminalization] system ... Has increased levels of regular cannabis use, or rates of experimentation among young adults. These results are broadly in accord with our earlier analysis of trends in cannabis use in Australia. ...They are also consistent with the results of similar analyses in the United States and the Netherlands."
- N. Donnelly et al. 1999. Effects of the Cannabis Expiation Notice Scheme on Levels and Patterns of Cannabis Use in South Australia: Evidence from the National Drug Strategy Household Surveys 1985-1995 (Report commissioned for the National Drug Strategy Committee). Australian Government Publishing Service: Canberra, Australia.
"The different laws which govern the use and sale of marijuana do not appear to have resulted in substantially different outcomes if we view those outcomes solely in terms of consumption patterns."
- Australian Institute of Criminology, and the New South Wales Department of Politics 1997. Marijuana in Australia, patterns and attitudes. Monograph Series No. 31, Looking Glass Press (Public Affairs): Canberra, Australia.
"While the Dutch case and other analogies have flaws, they appear to converge in suggesting that reductions in criminal penalties have limited effects on drug use, at least for marijuana."
- R. MacCoun and P. Reuter. 1997. Interpreting Dutch cannabis policy: Reasoning by analogy in the legalization debate. Science 278: 47-52.
"General deterrence, or the impact of the threat of legal sanction on the cannabis use of the population at large, has been assessed in large scale surveys. These studies have compared jurisdictions in the USA and Australia where penalties have been reduced with those where they have not, and rates of use have been unaffected. ... Since no deterrent impact was found, this research illustrates a high-cost, low-benefit policy in action. Therefore, if any penalty is awarded, it should be a consistent minimum one. ... The greatest impact on reducing the harmful individual consequences of criminalization would be achieved by eliminating or greatly reducing the numbers of cannabis criminals processed in the first place."
- P. Erickson and B. Fischer. 1997. Canadian cannabis policy: The impact of criminalization, the current reality and future policies. In: L. Bollinger (Ed.) Cannabis Science: From Prohibition to Human Right. Peter Lang, Frankfurt, Germany. 227-242.
"There does not appear to be a consistent pattern between arrest rates and [marijuana] prevalence rates in the [United States] general population. ... Following precipitous increases, marijuana use began decreasing in the late 1970s, during a period of relative stability in arrest rates. The general deterrence effects of the law (i.e., arrest practices), are not apparent based on the intercorrelations of the measures presented here."
- L. Harrison et al. 1995. Marijuana Policy and Prevalance. [15] In: P. Cohen and A. Sas (Eds.) Cannabisbeleid in Duitsland, Frankrijk en de Verenigde Staten. University of Amsterdam: Amsterdam. 248-253.
"The evidence is accumulating ... that liberalization does not increase cannabis use [and] that the total prohibition approach is costly [and] ineffective as a general deterrent."
- L. Atkinson and D. McDonald. 1995. Cannabis, the Law and Social Impacts in Australia. Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice 48.
"It has been demonstrated that the more or less free sale of [marijuana] for personal use in the Netherlands has not given rise to levels of use significantly higher than in countries which pursue a highly repressive policy."
- Netherlands Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport. 1995. Drugs: Policy in the Netherlands: Continuity and Change. The Hague.
"It is clear ... that the introduction of the CEN scheme [decriminalization] in South Australia has not produced a major increase in rates of cannabis use in South Australia by comparison with changes occurring elsewhere in Australia. ... It is not possible to attribute the moderate increases in cannabis use rates in South Australia to the removal of criminal penalties for small-scale cannabis offenses in that state."
- N. Donnelly et al. 1995. The effects of partial decriminalization on cannabis use in South Australia, 1985 to 1993. Australian Journal of Public Health 19: 281-287.
"The available evidence suggests that those jurisdictions which have decriminalized personal cannabis use have not experienced any dramatic increase in prevalence of use."
- National Drug and Alcohol Research Center. 1994. Patterns of cannabis use in Australia. Monograph Series No. 27, Australian Government Publishing Service: Canberra, Australia.
"It appears clear that there is no firm basis for concluding that the introduction of the Cannabis Expiation Notice System in South Australia in 1987 has had any detrimental effect in terms of leading to increased levels of cannabis use in the Southern Australian community. ... In the context of a society which is increasingly well informed about the risks associated with drug use in general, a move toward more lenient laws for small scale cannabis offenses, such as the CEN [decriminalization] system, will not lead to increased cannabis use."
- Drug and Alcohol Services Council of South Australia, Monitoring, Evaluation and Research Unit. 1991. The Effects of Cannabis Legalization in South Australia on Levels of Cannabis Use. DASC Press: Parkside, Australia.
1) - If people try thing because they are illegal then you cant defend stupidity. Do the crime then do the time.
2)- I'd say there is a lot of differnce between people from the UK and say someone from Germany, and a lot of difference between someone from Germany and someone from Italy. I dont think there is a brotherhood of Unity just because one is from Western Europe.
3) The drug law is not there to piss you off. At the end of the day Governments have a social responsibility to protect its citizens. Marijuana is a drug that is taken largely for no therapeutic benefits. There are various side effects from it use. Governments cant on one hand give out warnings about using a drug and then say have a try on the other, unless the benefits outweigh the negatives, and i'm afraid if you wanna get high or chill out or whatever by using Marijuana, then that does not constitute a benefit. Find a hobby or pastime or something.
are u saying that because a gov't bans something, then it is to be accepted by all? are u saying that becasue a gov't says a command that it's people are to believe that command becasue the gov't is an authority figure? so, if the gov't outlaws your desire to engage in sports, then you would drop that sport like a hot potato? and so you telling us that if a gov't medical institution suggests to do pharme's instead of natural means, then it's a civic duty to abide by gov't....
all insanity:
a derivitive of nature.
nature is god
god is love
love is light
are u saying that because a gov't bans something, then it is to be accepted by all? are u saying that becasue a gov't says a command that it's people are to believe that command becasue the gov't is an authority figure? so, if the gov't outlaws your desire to engage in sports, then you would drop that sport like a hot potato? and so you telling us that if a gov't medical institution suggests to do pharme's instead of natural means, then it's a civic duty to abide by gov't....
Personally speaking I don't take anything seriously from someone who uses the letter "u" for "you" and "gov't" for "government". You are not helping any "marijuana doesn't hurt your brain" cause.
So this life is sacrifice...
6/30/98 Minneapolis, 10/8/00 East Troy (Brrrr!), 6/16/03 St. Paul, 6/27/06 St. Paul
Give the states jurisdiction over marijuana's legality if we do the same for abortion.
Agreed! And while we are at it, how about letting states decide marriage, drinking age, driving age, and all the thousand other matters that the feds have taken on in the name of "interstate commerce".
Personally speaking I don't take anything seriously from someone who uses the letter "u" for "you" and "gov't" for "government". You are not helping any "marijuana doesn't hurt your brain" cause.
Okay, then, what about marijuana being an alternative for opiates when a person has a liver disease? Are you saying that a person who has a liver disease should refrain from benefits of cannabis? And why are you so anti-cannabis?
all insanity:
a derivitive of nature.
nature is god
god is love
love is light
Agreed! And while we are at it, how about letting states decide marriage, drinking age, driving age, and all the thousand other matters that the feds have taken on in the name of "interstate commerce".
Well for that matter, since you're so into state, why don't we have the state regulate grammar and spelling while we're at it!
all insanity:
a derivitive of nature.
nature is god
god is love
love is light
Come on all you Coloradians - get out and vote!!! Get the ball rolling for the rest of us.
Rise up with Coloradians, get everyone out there to make a vote count......Demand corporations out of the people's vote. Try not to go to local polling place; instead use absenteeism ballot. I think you have until end of October to apply for absentee ballot which will have your vote counted by hand. Don't let your precious vote be processed by a MACHINE..... love you jammers, as an entirety...however sum of u need to learn how to be human.;)
all insanity:
a derivitive of nature.
nature is god
god is love
love is light
Comments
i think i've answered that already. Even drugs that provide therapeutic benefits aren't legal without prescription. I've seen patients in extreme pain, come completely high with an injection of morphine. Doesnt mean it should be leglised for general public use because of its feel good factor.
As for crime, i dont see how legalising drugs, users are suddenly gonna be able to afford it or see the errors of their ways and feed their habit legally. You have no proof that legalisation of drugs will prevent the spread of aids and prostitution. As far as i know there are needle exchange programmes in the UK (http://www.welcome-solihull.co.uk/nx.htm this is my local one) , and just because addicts have to put a bit of effort for this we have to legalise drugs so it can be done on their doorstep?
Government are putting resources into all sorts of programmes. If their was another terrorist attack in the UK, i wouldn't say lets cut all funding to counter-terrorism measures.
They do with Nicotinne, and they quite happily spend the tax revenue that it generates also.
Fact: All drugs could be controled better and made safer by being legal, there is ways and methods this could be done, but only by being made legal the world over.
Fact: The taxable revenue generated could greatly improve our education and health service's, giving children a better education on why taking such things would damage them and why there lives would be better without them.
Creating a better health service to rehabilitate problematic users, criminals etc, etc.
And before all those against start with the "You would say that with a name like that" etc, etc bullshit, I have not smoked the stuff in 3 years, I dont even drink caffeine.
I'm also a psychology and counselling student, I have socialized in those circles and been amongst that community, the few that abuse would be helped this way, not their addictions and problems fed.
Still believe the fear fed propaganda all you like, drugs are not going away by being illegal, and that's exactly how the governments and leaders of this world like it.
i made the point before that if cigarettes were invented now, they too would be banned substances, i have no doubt about that.
Also i dont thing you can legalise pot and then put taxes on it. That will just keep a black market of legal untaxed marijuana being sold.
The argument that drugs arent going away by being illegal, therefore the argument needs to rethink what can be done to help those rather than punish those that feel a need to take drugs. I dont think legalising it would help at all. I remember watching a comedian in the UK pretending to be a dutch policeman and saying "we used to have a problem with burgulary, till we legalised it"
There is a black market for most things legal, that is unavoidable, and I think taxing these things would work, for all there is a black market for alcohol and nicotinne, the govornment still generates a massive revenue from legal sales of these things.
I have three children, when I grew up I started smoking weed and took my first acid trips at the age of 13, my eldest son is now 14 I also have a daughter who is 9 and a little toddler aged 2, I would feel a lot safer for my children if drugs were more controled, I have lived that life and know how easily accesible drugs are at a young age.
There's dealers that pray on kids, legalisation could take a massive percentage of that away, there is ways that those substances could be sold in secure pharmacy's/clubs where the person buying the substance has to take it before they can leave, there are ways that those users would have to register and sign a sheet to say that they accept the consequences and responsability of their actions while under the influence of said substance.
Because to me what it comes down to is personal choice and responsability, if someone wants to take something, as long as they dont do anything to harm another human being or cause damage to anothers property, then that is their choice after all it is their life.
- Evaluating alternative cannabis regimes. British Journal of Psychiatry. February 2001.
"In sum, there is little evidence that decriminalization of marijuana use necessarily leads to a substantial increase in marijuana use."
- National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine (IOM). 1999. Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base. National Academy Press: Washington, D.C., 102.
"The Law Revision Commission has examined laws from other states that have reduced penalties for small amounts of marijuana and the impact of those laws in those states. ... Studies of [those] states found (1) expenses for arrest and prosecution of marijuana possession offenses were significantly reduced, (2) any increase in the use of marijuana in those states was less that increased use in those states that did not decrease their penalties and the largest proportionate increase occurred in those states with the most severe penalties, and (3) reducing the penalties for marijuana has virtually no effect on either choice or frequency of the use of alcohol or illegal 'harder' drugs such as cocaine."
- Connecticut Law Review Commission. 1997. Drug Policy in Connecticut and Strategy Options: Report to the Judiciary Committee of the Connecticut General Assembly. State Capitol: Hartford.
"There is no strong evidence that decriminalization affects either the choice or frequency of use of drugs, either legal (alcohol) or illegal (marijuana and cocaine)."
- C. Thies and C. Register. 1993. Decriminalization of Marijuana and the Demand for Alcohol, Marijuana and Cocaine. The Social Sciences Journal 30: 385-399.
"In contrast with marijuana use, rates of other illicit drug use among ER [emergency room] patients were substantially higher in states that did not decriminalize marijuana use. The lack of decriminalization might have encouraged greater use of drugs that are even more dangerous than marijuana."
- K. Model. 1993. The effect of marijuana decriminalization on hospital emergency room episodes: 1975-1978. Journal of the American Statistical Association 88: 737-747, as cited by the National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine in Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base. [6]
"The available evidence indicates that the decriminalization of marijuana possession had little or no impact on rates of use. Although rates of marijuana use increased in those U.S. states [that] reduced maximum penalties for possession to a fine, the prevalence of use increased at similar or higher rates in those states [that] retained more severe penalties. There were also no discernible impacts on the health care systems. On the other hand, the so-called 'decriminalization' measures did result in substantial savings in the criminal justice system."
- E. Single. 1989. The Impact of Marijuana Decriminalization: An Update. Journal of Public Health 10: 456-466.
"Overall, the preponderance of the evidence which we have gathered and examined points to the conclusion that decriminalization has had virtually no effect either on the marijuana use or on related attitudes and beliefs about marijuana use among American young people. The data show no evidence of any increase, relative to the control states, in the proportion of the age group who ever tried marijuana. In fact, both groups of experimental states showed a small, cumulative net decline in annual prevalence after decriminalization."
- L. Johnson et al. 1981. Marijuana Decriminalization: The Impact on Youth 1975-1980. Monitoring the Future, Occasional Paper Series, paper 13, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan: Ann Arbor.
"Consumption appears to be unaffected, or affected only minimally by decriminalization, and most people believe that it has had little impact. Further, decriminalization has proven to be administratively and economically advantageous for state law enforcement efforts."
- D. Maloff. 1981. Review of the effects of decriminalization of marijuana. Contemporary Drug Problems Fall: 307-322.
"Levels of use tended to be higher in the decriminalization states both before and after the changes in law. tates which moderated penalties after 1974 (essentially a group of decriminalization states) did indeed experience an increase in rates of marijuana use, among both adolescents (age 12-17) and adults (18 or older). However, the increase in marijuana use was even greater in other states and the largest proportionate increase occurred in those states with the most severe penalties."
- W. Saveland and D. Bray. 1980. American Trends in Cannabis Use Among States with Different Changing Legal Regimes. Bureau of Tobacco Control and Biometrics, Health and Welfare: Ottawa, as cited by E. Single in The Impact of Marijuana Decriminalization: an Update.
"The reduction in penalties for possession of marijuana for personal use does not appear to have been a factor in people's decision to use or not use the drug."
- California State Office of Narcotics and Drug Abuse. 1977. A First Report on the Impact of California's New Marijuana Law. State Capitol: Sacramento.
"The number of [hospital] admissions directly due to marijuana use decreased from ... 1970 to ... 1975. In the same time, the number of admissions for drug abuse of all types, except alcohol, [also] decreased. ... The following conclusion seem warranted: medically significant problems from the use of marijuana have decreased coincident with decriminalizing marijuana."
- P. Blachly. 1976. Effects of Decriminalization of Marijuana in Oregon. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 282: 405-415.
"Data collected at four points in time in Ann Arbor [Michigan] and the control communities (which underwent no change in marijuana penalties) indicated that marijuana use was not affected by the change in law [to decriminalization.]"
- R. Stuart et al. 1976. Penalty for the Possession of Marijuana: An Analysis of Some of its Concomitants. Contemporary Drug Problems 5: 553, as cited by E. Single in The Impact of Marijuana Decriminalization: an Update.
International Studies
"The Dutch experience, together with those of a few other countries with more modest policy changes, provides a moderately good empirical case that removal of criminal prohibitions on cannabis possession (decriminalization) will not increase the prevalence of marijuana or any other illicit drug; the argument for decriminalization is thus strong."
- R. MacCoun and P. Reuter. 2001. Evaluating alternative cannabis regimes. British Journal of Psychiatry 178: 123-128.
"Fear of apprehension, fear of being imprisoned, the cost of cannabis or the difficulty in obtaining cannabis do not appear to exert a strong influence on decisions about cannabis consumption. ... Those factors may limit cannabis use among frequent cannabis users, but there is no evidence, as of yet, to support this conjecture."
- D. Weatherburn and C. Jones. 2001. Does prohibition deter cannabis use? New South Wales (Australia) Bureau of Crime Statistics: Sydney.
"The available data indicate that decriminalization measures substantially reduced enforcement costs, yet had little or no impact on rates of use in the United States. In the South Australian community, none of the studies have found an impact in cannabis use which is attributable to the introduction of the Cannabis Expiation Scheme [decriminalization.]"
- E. Single et al. 2000. The Impact of Cannabis Decriminalisation in Australia and the United States. Journal of Public Health Policy 21: 157-186.
"There is no evidence to date that the CEN [decriminalization] system ... Has increased levels of regular cannabis use, or rates of experimentation among young adults. These results are broadly in accord with our earlier analysis of trends in cannabis use in Australia. ...They are also consistent with the results of similar analyses in the United States and the Netherlands."
- N. Donnelly et al. 1999. Effects of the Cannabis Expiation Notice Scheme on Levels and Patterns of Cannabis Use in South Australia: Evidence from the National Drug Strategy Household Surveys 1985-1995 (Report commissioned for the National Drug Strategy Committee). Australian Government Publishing Service: Canberra, Australia.
"The different laws which govern the use and sale of marijuana do not appear to have resulted in substantially different outcomes if we view those outcomes solely in terms of consumption patterns."
- Australian Institute of Criminology, and the New South Wales Department of Politics 1997. Marijuana in Australia, patterns and attitudes. Monograph Series No. 31, Looking Glass Press (Public Affairs): Canberra, Australia.
"While the Dutch case and other analogies have flaws, they appear to converge in suggesting that reductions in criminal penalties have limited effects on drug use, at least for marijuana."
- R. MacCoun and P. Reuter. 1997. Interpreting Dutch cannabis policy: Reasoning by analogy in the legalization debate. Science 278: 47-52.
"General deterrence, or the impact of the threat of legal sanction on the cannabis use of the population at large, has been assessed in large scale surveys. These studies have compared jurisdictions in the USA and Australia where penalties have been reduced with those where they have not, and rates of use have been unaffected. ... Since no deterrent impact was found, this research illustrates a high-cost, low-benefit policy in action. Therefore, if any penalty is awarded, it should be a consistent minimum one. ... The greatest impact on reducing the harmful individual consequences of criminalization would be achieved by eliminating or greatly reducing the numbers of cannabis criminals processed in the first place."
- P. Erickson and B. Fischer. 1997. Canadian cannabis policy: The impact of criminalization, the current reality and future policies. In: L. Bollinger (Ed.) Cannabis Science: From Prohibition to Human Right. Peter Lang, Frankfurt, Germany. 227-242.
"There does not appear to be a consistent pattern between arrest rates and [marijuana] prevalence rates in the [United States] general population. ... Following precipitous increases, marijuana use began decreasing in the late 1970s, during a period of relative stability in arrest rates. The general deterrence effects of the law (i.e., arrest practices), are not apparent based on the intercorrelations of the measures presented here."
- L. Harrison et al. 1995. Marijuana Policy and Prevalance. [15] In: P. Cohen and A. Sas (Eds.) Cannabisbeleid in Duitsland, Frankrijk en de Verenigde Staten. University of Amsterdam: Amsterdam. 248-253.
"The evidence is accumulating ... that liberalization does not increase cannabis use [and] that the total prohibition approach is costly [and] ineffective as a general deterrent."
- L. Atkinson and D. McDonald. 1995. Cannabis, the Law and Social Impacts in Australia. Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice 48.
"It has been demonstrated that the more or less free sale of [marijuana] for personal use in the Netherlands has not given rise to levels of use significantly higher than in countries which pursue a highly repressive policy."
- Netherlands Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport. 1995. Drugs: Policy in the Netherlands: Continuity and Change. The Hague.
"It is clear ... that the introduction of the CEN scheme [decriminalization] in South Australia has not produced a major increase in rates of cannabis use in South Australia by comparison with changes occurring elsewhere in Australia. ... It is not possible to attribute the moderate increases in cannabis use rates in South Australia to the removal of criminal penalties for small-scale cannabis offenses in that state."
- N. Donnelly et al. 1995. The effects of partial decriminalization on cannabis use in South Australia, 1985 to 1993. Australian Journal of Public Health 19: 281-287.
"The available evidence suggests that those jurisdictions which have decriminalized personal cannabis use have not experienced any dramatic increase in prevalence of use."
- National Drug and Alcohol Research Center. 1994. Patterns of cannabis use in Australia. Monograph Series No. 27, Australian Government Publishing Service: Canberra, Australia.
"It appears clear that there is no firm basis for concluding that the introduction of the Cannabis Expiation Notice System in South Australia in 1987 has had any detrimental effect in terms of leading to increased levels of cannabis use in the Southern Australian community. ... In the context of a society which is increasingly well informed about the risks associated with drug use in general, a move toward more lenient laws for small scale cannabis offenses, such as the CEN [decriminalization] system, will not lead to increased cannabis use."
- Drug and Alcohol Services Council of South Australia, Monitoring, Evaluation and Research Unit. 1991. The Effects of Cannabis Legalization in South Australia on Levels of Cannabis Use. DASC Press: Parkside, Australia.
a derivitive of nature.
nature is god
god is love
love is light
http://stopthedrugwar.org/in_the_trenches/2006/oct/10/from_safer_colorado_marijuana_in
Come on all you Coloradians - get out and vote!!! Get the ball rolling for the rest of us.
Give the states jurisdiction over marijuana's legality if we do the same for abortion.
6/30/98 Minneapolis, 10/8/00 East Troy (Brrrr!), 6/16/03 St. Paul, 6/27/06 St. Paul
Personally speaking I don't take anything seriously from someone who uses the letter "u" for "you" and "gov't" for "government". You are not helping any "marijuana doesn't hurt your brain" cause.
6/30/98 Minneapolis, 10/8/00 East Troy (Brrrr!), 6/16/03 St. Paul, 6/27/06 St. Paul
a derivitive of nature.
nature is god
god is love
love is light
a derivitive of nature.
nature is god
god is love
love is light
a derivitive of nature.
nature is god
god is love
love is light