The Irish War on Drugs

[pete2]

Seriously, how many threads do we have to go over the medical research?
There ISN'T a proven link between cannabis and testicular cancer.
<snip>
The people who CONDUCT the medical research oppose prohibition for the simple reason that it inhibits their ability to conduct proper trials into all the medical ramifications of all substances.

Am only aware of the one thread that raised it and you do a great service highlighting the proven health risks of the legalized drugs. My point is saying 'not proven' should be prefaced by 'the research is in its early days with positive and negative results'. Even when a link to cancer is established (assume it will be) people should be allowed to smoke it, doesn't matter to me, so long as they know the risks OP I didnt mean to hijack the thread.

[Wakeupcall]

Tax it
Smoke it

Eat something nice

[JCSkinner]

Am only aware of the one thread that raised it and you do a great service highlighting the proven health risks of the legalized drugs. My point is saying 'not proven' should be prefaced by 'the research is in its early days with positive and negative results'. Even when a link to cancer is established (assume it will be) people should be allowed to smoke it, doesn't matter to me, so long as they know the risks OP I didnt mean to hijack the thread.

There's been a spate of threads about the drugs issue recently, and I find myself repeating myself again and again, simply to refute the same disinformation again and again.
Don't take it personally. I was merely venting a little frustration at the extent to which the public in general have been disinformed on the issue.
I wouldn't make that assumption that a causal link between cannabis and testicular cancer will be proven. The assumption made previously about cannabis 'causing' schizophrenia proved not to be true as formulated.
I appreciate what you're saying about drugs education and imbuing people with the information and the rights to made informed choices about the substances they consume.
But I firmly believe that they also must have the right to obtain those substances without engaging with criminal gangs, and they have the right to obtain substances that are as safe as possible and free from dangerous adulterants.

[pete2]

The assumption made previously about cannabis 'causing' schizophrenia proved not to be true as formulated.

I had noticed the idea mentioned and the cite was wikipedia or somewhere silly. In the early days it was a common allegation made in connection to LSD25 abuse amongst the public. Since then I think the psychotherapy industry has moved to harness the drug for therapeutic use. So I don't put much store in that, its the effects on the lungs and testicles that would concern me.

[Wakeupcall]

THE HISTORY OF MARIJUANA - [COLOR="DarkGreen"]NARRATED BY WOODY HARRILSON[/COLOR] <<<- 50mins++

Excellent documentary

[ame=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7417904870843277177&ei=xkPASerjKoTO-Abb4NzHAQ&q=tory+of+marijuana&dur=3]The History of marijuana[/ame]

[JCSkinner]

I had noticed the idea mentioned and the cite was wikipedia or somewhere silly. In the early days it was a common allegation made in connection to LSD25 abuse amongst the public. Since then I think the psychotherapy industry has moved to harness the drug for therapeutic use. So I don't put much store in that, its the effects on the lungs and testicles that would concern me.

Smoking anything isn't going to be appreciated by the lungs. However, pure herbal cannabis has a series of benefits over its rival product tobacco.
It's not addictive. It lacks the hundreds of dangerous chemicals, like benzene and cyanide, contained in tobacco smoke. It has benefits, such as an anti-nausea action and a hunger provoking action, that are useful in certain medical circumstances.
But despite all that, smoking anything can obviously lead to a higher rate of pulmonary illnesses, including lung cancer.
There isn't any proven link to testicular cancer, but I would obviously welcome further research in this area.
One solution of course is to utilise a vaporiser or to consume cannabis instead of smoking.

[evercloserunion]

The only arguments tha could be made for prohibition, IMO, are

- That the detriment to society created by legalizing drugs and making them more widespread and legally, socially and morally acceptable would outstrip the benefits outlined by JC. For example, drugs which lead to aggression and violence in people and increased addiction to drugs like heroin.

- The argument, as against anti-prohibition arguments from comparison with tobacco and alcohol, that two wrongs don't make a right and that just because some things which have socially harmful effects aren't criminalized doesn't mean that other things which have socially harmful effects should be decriminalized.

[pete2]

I know but you cant legalize something that may be addictive and cancer causing. That is just asking for trouble, look at the difficulty there is getting society to go easy on tobacco and alcohol. Is there some marijuana industry lobby pushing these ideas on legalizing it?

[stewiegriffin]

Is there some marijuana industry lobby pushing these ideas on legalizing it?

No , you see if prohibition was lifted ,people would 'grow their own ' so there is no money to be made .Thats why more dangerous(profitable) things are legal while cannabis , is not. Insane 'system' if you ask me .

[JCSkinner]

The only arguments tha could be made for prohibition, IMO, are

- That the detriment to society created by legalizing drugs and making them more widespread and legally, socially and morally acceptable would outstrip the benefits outlined by JC. For example, drugs which lead to aggression and violence in people and increased addiction to drugs like heroin.

The Lancet study into relative personal and social harm caused by drugs reveals that alcohol and tobacco are both much more dangerous substances than cannabis, LSD, ecstasy or a series of other substances. That argument of yours is one in favour of banning the legal drugs, not keeping the illegal ones prohibited.

The argument, as against anti-prohibition arguments from comparison with tobacco and alcohol, that two wrongs don't make a right and that just because some things which have socially harmful effects aren't criminalized doesn't mean that other things which have socially harmful effects should be decriminalized.

See above.