That's not the same thing as having it legal. If I want to get a cigarette, I know, in an instant, where I can go and have absolutely no concerns about doing so. If I want to get a joint, the basic level of knowledge and possible risk is exponentially greater. Is it easy to get weed? Compared to other contraband, yes, probably. But compared to other legal drugs, such as alcohol or nicotine? Absolutely not.
If MJ had the same restrictions on it as tobacco (or lack thereof), you really think usage would only go up by 1-2%? What rationale would explain such a low increase? You think the number of people who'd potentially want to smoke MJ is maxed out already?
Interestingly, decriminalization didn't fuel a big spike in usage in the Netherlands but I'd be hesitant to compare the two societies too closely since the US, in general, seems to have a penchant for addictive personalities when it comes to drug consumption.
Your opinion here goes against all available evidence.
Would your opinion on using it yourself change if it were legal/not criminal?
Anyways, my original point was that legalization would have some health care impact. Given how much this country spends on alcohol and tobacco-related illnesses and other costs, I don't see how legalization of other drugs - ranging from MJ up to heroin or coke - WOULDN'T also create more health care related costs. That's not an argument against legalization. It's just pointing out what possible future consequences would be.
Yes. Changing the legal status of a non toxic home remedy for everything from headaches to chemotherapy would have some health care impact. Whatever that impact is though is negligible to the overall legal debate.
Z: I'm not arguing the legal debate. My stance is unambiguous - I think anything that dismantles this ridiculous and pernicious "war on drugs" model is positive, whether that means decriminalization or legalization.
My points here are more of literal academic ones - what would the short/long-term implications be of such a policy change in terms of 1) overall usage and 2) health care costs.
My original point - not well stated - was that the move to legalize drugs (not just MJ but all drugs) would likely have an impact of the health care system. It may be relevant to separate which drugs we're talking about here - MJ is less "harmful" than meth, heroin and coke and therefore, its impact would have to be measured differently - but I do wonder how the state of health care would change with a move towards legalization. I don't imagine it would stay static.
It's also important to make a distinction between which of the two policies we're talking about here and I was sloppy in not parsing these out better. There's arguments that decriminalization may not create a statistically significant spike in overall MJ usage (let's just limit this to MJ). LEGALIZATION, I think, would and that has less to do with its legal status and everything to do with how the infrastructure of distribution and marketing for MJ would change if the drug were as legal as alcohol and tobacco.
Again, it's not about legal status, it's about how the drug - as a product - suddenly becomes fair game in a society that already has multi-billion dollars pharma industries pitching drugs of every variety. Even if MJ advertising were constrained in the same way, say, tobacco advertising is, that's still more of a powerful, focused push to develop/recruit more consumers than exist now.
Personally, I think it's doubtful we'd see legalized MJ go that far mainstream. It seems far more likely that decriminalization is as far as things would get but in my opinion, that'd be enough to improve our policy priorities.
I'd rather see the crack/powder cocaine disparity get fixed first however.
Isn't the hemp used for rope/clothing/paper/etc derived from a completely different part of the plant than the buds for smoking are? Isn't a plant designed for optimal use in those applications going to be cultivated and harvested differently than one made for potent, recreational smoking?
I don't think the two would impact each other at all.
Personally, I think it's doubtful we'd see legalized MJ go that far mainstream. It seems far more likely that decriminalization is as far as things would get but in my opinion, that'd be enough to improve our policy priorities.
Big cosine. Law enforcement efforts are better utilized elsewhere.
Comments
Your opinion here goes against all available evidence.
Would your opinion on using it yourself change if it were legal/not criminal?
Yes. Changing the legal status of a non toxic home remedy for everything from headaches to chemotherapy would have some health care impact. Whatever that impact is though is negligible to the overall legal debate.
My points here are more of literal academic ones - what would the short/long-term implications be of such a policy change in terms of 1) overall usage and 2) health care costs.
My original point - not well stated - was that the move to legalize drugs (not just MJ but all drugs) would likely have an impact of the health care system. It may be relevant to separate which drugs we're talking about here - MJ is less "harmful" than meth, heroin and coke and therefore, its impact would have to be measured differently - but I do wonder how the state of health care would change with a move towards legalization. I don't imagine it would stay static.
It's also important to make a distinction between which of the two policies we're talking about here and I was sloppy in not parsing these out better. There's arguments that decriminalization may not create a statistically significant spike in overall MJ usage (let's just limit this to MJ). LEGALIZATION, I think, would and that has less to do with its legal status and everything to do with how the infrastructure of distribution and marketing for MJ would change if the drug were as legal as alcohol and tobacco.
Again, it's not about legal status, it's about how the drug - as a product - suddenly becomes fair game in a society that already has multi-billion dollars pharma industries pitching drugs of every variety. Even if MJ advertising were constrained in the same way, say, tobacco advertising is, that's still more of a powerful, focused push to develop/recruit more consumers than exist now.
Personally, I think it's doubtful we'd see legalized MJ go that far mainstream. It seems far more likely that decriminalization is as far as things would get but in my opinion, that'd be enough to improve our policy priorities.
I'd rather see the crack/powder cocaine disparity get fixed first however.
Jpeg please
I've never heard it referred to as that before.
I'm just hella lazy.
Big cosine. Law enforcement efforts are better utilized elsewhere.