Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Legalising marijuana = solve issues like murder? Really? Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    I read somewhere: "If I had to pick a drug to legalize, it would be marijuana; that would at least create economic growth and could help to solve other issues like murder and rape."

    I have absolutely no idea how this person came to this conclusion / whether it is even true. Could anyone explain to me whether there is sense in this?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    It wouldn't solve those issues but if it replaces alcohol as people's default substance then it would reduce alcohol related murder and rape, I'm certain about that. Stoned people aren't going around doing that stuff.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    The argument would be that legalising drugs stops gangs from controlling them, leading to less gang violence etc.

    As an aside: ecstasy would be a better candidate for legalisation :yes: (if drug controls were based on actual logic rather than politics).
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Well when you legalize an illegal product you can start to regulate the sale and production (to a certain extent). If you make marijuana legal you drive down the price and make the sale unattractive for drug dealers thereby reducing the amount of dealers and as such crime related incidents that result from this kind of trade.

    I don't think there are many murder caused by the legal status of marijuana quite frankly, but theft and other softer crimes sure.

    (Original post by nexttime)
    The argument would be that legalising drugs stops gangs from controlling them, leading to less gang violence etc.

    As an aside: ecstasy would be a better candidate for legalisation :yes: (if drug controls were based on actual logic rather than politics).
    What??

    I'm all for legalization but MDMA and derived substances are not exactly the least harmful psychoactive out there.

    Sure there not considerably addictive but you can overdose on them much more easily than you can on marijuana. There's never been a reported overdose on marijuana since the amount you would need is absurd lol but there have been on ecstasy.

    Name:  Drug_danger_and_dependence.svg.png
Views: 299
Size:  34.0 KB
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sulphur)
    Well when you legalize an illegal product you can start to regulate the sale and production (to a certain extent). If you make marijuana legal you drive down the price and make the sale unattractive for drug dealers thereby reducing the amount of dealers and as such crime related incidents that result from this kind of trade.

    I don't think there are many murder caused by the legal status of marijuana quite frankly, but theft and other softer crimes sure.



    What??

    I'm all for legalization but MDMA and derived substances are not exactly the least harmful psychoactive out there.

    Sure there not considerably addictive but you can overdose on them much more easily than you can on marijuana. There's never been a reported overdose on marijuana since the amount you would need is absurd lol but there have been on ecstasy.

    Name:  Drug_danger_and_dependence.svg.png
Views: 299
Size:  34.0 KB
    Overdose is not the most important danger though. Its the long term effects (including addiction) that cause the vast majority of drug-related deaths. Plus MDMA ODs are still incredibly rare and usually related to poor education about how much water you should drink.

    Medical marijuana though is definitely something extremely useful - its crazy that its banned to prescribe it.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nexttime)
    Overdose is not the most important danger though. Its the long term effects (including addiction) that cause the vast majority of drug-related deaths. Plus MDMA ODs are still incredibly rare and usually related to poor education about how much water you should drink.

    Medical marijuana though is definitely something extremely useful - its crazy that its banned to prescribe it.
    Preaching to the choir man

    Here's to hoping for some sensible drug policies this decade...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sulphur)
    Name:  Drug_danger_and_dependence.svg.png
Views: 299
Size:  34.0 KB
    The graph there, I understand the dependance potential axis, but for the Active Dose / Lethal Dose; I'm assuming that the further to the right a drug is, say Alcohol, the more lethal it is, in comparison to the dose needed to feel the effects?

    If so, what is it measured in, from 0.001 to 0.2? It just says 'Active / Lethal Dose Ratio' ? What is the Active Dose?

    Say a kid gets a bit tipsy and starts to feel the effects of alcohol after 2 beers, at a ratio of 0.1 that means 10x the active dose will reach the lethal dose? So 20 beers would be lethal? Is the active dose objective or subjective?

    I get the jist of it, but the active dose is confusing me a wee bit.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sulphur)
    Preaching to the choir man

    Here's to hoping for some sensible drug policies this decade...
    It's absolutely ridiculous that we're not getting change already.

    The government and their pathetic excuses annoy me so much.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rybee)
    The graph there, I understand the dependance potential axis, but for the Active Dose / Lethal Dose; I'm assuming that the further to the right a drug is, say Alcohol, the more lethal it is, in comparison to the dose needed to feel the effects?

    If so, what is it measured in, from 0.001 to 0.2? It just says 'Active / Lethal Dose Ratio' ? What is the Active Dose?

    Say a kid gets a bit tipsy and starts to feel the effects of alcohol after 2 beers, at a ratio of 0.1 that means 10x the active dose will reach the lethal dose? So 20 beers would be lethal? Is the active dose objective or subjective?

    I get the jist of it, but the active dose is confusing me a wee bit.
    You pretty much got it; for recreational purposes the active dose is just the amount that say 90% or 50% of the population need to feel the effects divided by the lethal dose. Since everyone's tolerance level is different it needs to be averaged on a large sample to get an accurate picture of the amount joe average needs.

    Your alcohol analysis was correct, 0.1 is just a ratio of 1/10.

    However if were talking about medicine vs recreational drugs there a difference in how its assessed. In recreational drugs the active dose can vary (i.e. it takes more or less for someone to feel the effects they want to feel) but the lethal dose does not.

    So for marijuana you'd need a 1000 times the active dose, which is pretty ridiculous. For heroin you would only need 5x the active dose but for addicts their tolerance can be much higher than the active dose so they are at a greater risk then everyone else of ODing.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The Government needs to listen to people like Dr. David Nutt and Dr. Les King and base drug classifications on scientific fact, not social policy.

    I hate people who are so ignorant to mild drug use yet cannot survive without;
    a caffeine kick in the morning,
    a nicotine break at lunchtime, and
    a hard drink after work,

    whilst dismissing these as 'drugs' because they're 'legal'. So ****ing hypocritical.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Redolent)
    It's absolutely ridiculous that we're not getting change already.

    The government and their pathetic excuses annoy me so much.
    I know, even with the drug advisory boards recommending radical change the government plows ahead disregarding scientific evidence. Unless public opinion changes i.e. opinion of voters, nothing is going to happen, none of the parties are ballsy enough to go through with legalization when its likely to lose them votes.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sulphur)
    You pretty much got it; for recreational purposes the active dose is just the amount that say 90% or 50% of the population need to feel the effects divided by the lethal dose. Since everyone's tolerance level is different it needs to be averaged on a large sample to get an accurate picture of the amount joe average needs.

    Your alcohol analysis was correct, 0.1 is just a ratio of 1/10.

    However if were talking about medicine vs recreational drugs there a difference in how its assessed. In recreational drugs the active dose can vary (i.e. it takes more or less for someone to feel the effects they want to feel) but the lethal dose does not.

    So for marijuana you'd need a 1000 times the active dose, which is pretty ridiculous. For heroin you would only need 5x the active dose but for addicts their tolerance can be much higher than the active dose so they are at a greater risk then everyone else of ODing.
    Aah thanks for clearing it up. Just asking because in hospital I was given 25mg of morphine which is the usual 'medical dose' for pain, yet I do use it recreationally at about 60mg. It looks about 0.08 on the scale so that's a ratio of 1:8... which is 200mg. (Just Googled it and lots of info says 200mg is the lethal dose so that checks up!)

    Very interesting chart there... Trying to Google some more with other drugs on, thanks for posting it!

    I'm a very pro-drug and liberal person and live by the motto, live and let live. I hate busy bodies interfering with others' lives and liberties when it doesn't infringe their own.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rybee)
    The Government needs to listen to people like Dr. David Nutt and Dr. Les King and base drug classifications on scientific fact, not social policy.

    I hate people who are so ignorant to mild drug use yet cannot survive without;
    a caffeine kick in the morning,
    a nicotine break at lunchtime, and
    a hard drink after work,

    whilst dismissing these as 'drugs' because they're 'legal'. So ****ing hypocritical.
    <3 Dr.Nutt, such a badass.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sulphur)
    I know, even with the drug advisory boards recommending radical change the government plows ahead disregarding scientific evidence. Unless public opinion changes i.e. opinion of voters, nothing is going to happen, none of the parties are ballsy enough to go through with legalization when its likely to lose them votes.
    I usually gauge public opinion through the comments section of news websites, which is perhaps a bit naive of me, but on pretty much every site I look at people are in favour of liberalising the drug laws. Guardian, Daily Mail, Telegraph, BBC, it doesn't matter... consistently the comments calling for drug laws to ease up are the most popular. Views like these are on the rise fortunately, I think.

    Yeah, all in all I think it just boils down to cowardice - politicians lack the balls to face the knee-jerk reactions against the idea, the ones they have created themselves by pushing drug propaganda instead of factual information.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rybee)
    Aah thanks for clearing it up. Just asking because in hospital I was given 25mg of morphine which is the usual 'medical dose' for pain, yet I do use it recreationally at about 60mg. It looks about 0.08 on the scale so that's a ratio of 1:8... which is 200mg. (Just Googled it and lots of info says 200mg is the lethal dose so that checks up!)

    Very interesting chart there... Trying to Google some more with other drugs on, thanks for posting it!

    I'm a very pro-drug and liberal person and live by the motto, live and let live. I hate busy bodies interfering with others' lives and liberties when it doesn't infringe their own.
    You're very welcome!

    Not everyday I meet people who echo my opinion on this subject.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Redolent)
    Yeah, all in all I think it just boils down to cowardice - politicians lack the balls to face the knee-jerk reactions against the idea, the ones they have created themselves by pushing drug propaganda instead of factual information.
    Spot on mate.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nexttime)
    The argument would be that legalising drugs stops gangs from controlling them, leading to less gang violence etc.

    As an aside: ecstasy would be a better candidate for legalisation :yes: (if drug controls were based on actual logic rather than politics).
    First statement is truth.Have you seen the documentary 'Breaking the Taboo'?

    Second statement, I'd rather go with the one illicit drug you can't fatally overdose on.

    But seriously, the amount of alcohol fuelled violence and crime that goes on daily is frightening...

    Whoever was quoted has left themselves open to criticism though. It's a generic and strong statement to make about a drug people have already made their minds up about with nothing to back up that claim.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sulphur)
    <3 Dr.Nutt, such a badass.
    Massive respect for the guy. Still in disbelief they fired him just for mentioning findings the government preferred not to hear.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    If weed gets legalised gangs will see a reduction in profit and move to to harder substances which will create more violence in the long run.

    Everyone knows a guy selling weed so its relatively easy to get, it should be kept that way and illegal because once weed gets legalised people will see it as a gateway to try other drugs

    from weed to shrooms

    shrooms to acid

    acid to MDMA


    Next thing you know half of the population will be like ...

    Spoiler:
    Show
















    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CoolStoryBroo)
    If weed gets legalised gangs will see a reduction in profit and move to to harder substances which will create more violence in the long run.

    Everyone knows a guy selling weed so its relatively easy to get, it should be kept that way and illegal because once weed gets legalised people will see it as a gateway to try other drugs

    from weed to shrooms

    shrooms to acid

    acid to MDMA


    Next thing you know half of the population will be like ...

    Spoiler:
    Show
















    The law in Holland defies that assertion though. I'd much prefer to move to a Hard Drug/Soft Drug policy such as theirs. Marijuana is still illegal in Holland, but the way in which they control the supply/demand of it is much more practical and effective.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.