Cannabis Conspiration

[Jeremy]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008 ... 149398.htm

Cannabis 'bigger cancer risk' than cigarettes

Smoking a joint is equivalent to 20 cigarettes in terms of lung cancer risk, scientists in New Zealand have found, as they warned of an "epidemic" of lung cancers linked to cannabis.

Studies in the past have demonstrated that cannabis can cause cancer, but few have established a strong link between cannabis use and the actual incidence of lung cancer.

In an article published in the European Respiratory Journal, the scientists say cannabis could be expected to harm the airways more than tobacco as its smoke contained twice the level of carcinogens, such as polyaromatic hydrocarbons, compared with tobacco cigarettes.

The method of smoking also increases the risk, since joints are typically smoked without a proper filter and almost to the very tip, which increases the amount of smoke inhaled.

The cannabis smoker inhales more deeply and for longer, facilitating the deposition of carcinogens in the airways.

The researchers interviewed 79 lung cancer patients and sought to identify the main risk factors for the disease, such as smoking, family history and occupation.

The patients were questioned about alcohol and cannabis consumption.

In this high-exposure group, lung cancer risk rose by 5.7 times for patients who smoked more than a joint a day for 10 years, or two joints a day for 5 years, after adjusting for other variables, including cigarette smoking.

"While our study covers a relatively small group, it shows clearly that long-term cannabis smoking increases lung cancer risk," team leader Richard Beasley wrote.

"Cannabis use could already be responsible for one in 20 lung cancers diagnosed in New Zealand.

"In the near future we may see an 'epidemic' of lung cancers connected with this new carcinogen.

"And the future risk probably applies to many other countries, where increasing use of cannabis among young adults and adolescents is becoming a major public health problem."

- Reuters

[The Actual Sized E]

Which goes back to the main point of my post, which I don't think you ever responded to: the efforts to reduce the use of marijuana are themselves a greater harm than the inherent harm of using the drug.

uhhh, is it just me, or is this the same thing jeremy is saying??

Jeremy is in favor of decriminalization, which I agree is a step in the right direction, but what Nathan mentioned was legalization, which is a HUGE difference. While decriminalization would help alleviate the struggling criminal justice system and overcrowded prisons (where in America we arrest 1.6 million citizens a year for non-violent drug violations), it would still leave intact the most destructive side of the "War on Drugs" which is the drug black market.

Drugs get nearly all there monetary value from prohibition, without it they would simply be relatively easily cultivated and processed weeds. For example if heroin was legal and made available by the government through clinics to registered heroin addicts for free, they would have no reason to go to the corner and spend $20-40 to get their fix. This is a big deal. Gangs and crime organizations make the majority of their money through selling drugs, the profits are astronomical. Imagine what would happen to them if all of a sudden their product lost all it's value. For urban youth the dopeman would no longer be looked up to as the only successful figure in their neighborhood and gang life would not seem as enticing without the money. And now the junkie no longer has to figure out a way to get enough money every day to keep from getting sick. This means he doesn't need to beg on the street for your money or break into your car and steal your radio in order to fund his addiction. Also, when all his time and money is not getting burnt up in his habit, he might be able to pay his rent and hold his job and be a functioning part of society, he might even find enough hope to quit using drugs. Lastly, with professionals in control of the production and distribution of these substances, the death rate due to overdose would likely plummet. Heroin users don't OD because one day they decide to do 3-4 times as much as they're used to, they OD because they unknowingly buy a bag that wasn't mixed properly that has 3-4 times the purity they are used to. This is not uncommon since the mix is put together uncontrolled environments, without regulation, by unprofessionals who have no accountability for their product.

I recognize that this sounds overly optimistic and simple, and it might be, these are just ideas and I've left a lot of issues out. But certainly we as a society would be better off if the production and distribution of substances as potentially harmful as these was handled by legally trained professionals rather than criminals, and if the profits made from them did not go towards funding criminal enterprises. I'd like to hear any opinions on this, pro or con, there are probably lots of factors I've left out.

[Scott]

Eric, are you are saying that you're not concerned about the social impact of drug use but only with who is making the profit from drug sales?

It would seem to me that government should be attempting to both reduce the use of drugs and also the impact of drug use on society. If that is the case then by profiting from the sale of drugs the government would have a clear conflict of interest.

Alternatively if you legalize the sale of drugs then you would simply be transferring the profits from drug dealers and cartels to sales people and corporations, although profit margins would almost certainly be lower.

I mostly agree with Jeremy's arguments on this topic.

[Jeremy]

Yeah, I think the evidence is conclusive that the majority of recreational drugs are indeed negative for your health (indeed a recent study by Dr Chris Dayas suggests that drug addiction can permanently change your brain chemistry). By the same token, it is far from conclusive that the legalisation of drugs reduces drug usage. While there is certainly evidence to suggest that some exceedingly authoritarian approaches to drug usage have exceedingly negative results, it does seem fairly intuitive that if you ban a substance less people will use it. It's obviously equally important and ethical to not punish people for addictions and not to be too sever on punishment for crimes where the there is only a potential for harm, rather than genuine harm.

I think because of the nature of recreational drugs, and the fact that people are so different, it's impossible to find a simple solution to the problem, and regardless of what solution you choose, there are going to be people who effectively lose. The best approach needs to be a scientifically minded risk management approach.

[The Actual Sized E]

Let me start off by saying that the post which I took Nathan's quote from referred only to the legalization of marijuana, not all drugs. My post seemed to allude that we were saying the same thing, but I don't know what his views are on what I was proposing. Also, I want to say that my views are based on how prohibition affects Americans, things may be different in Australia or other nations. Anyway..............

Eric, are you are saying that you're not concerned about the social impact of drug use but only with who is making the profit from drug sales?

Absolutely not, my main point is that the negative social impact or drug prohibition far outweighs the negative social impact of the actual use of the drug. The negative affects of drug use affect the users and those who care about them. Drug prohibition affects EVERYONE. Still, I am very concerned with the negative impacts drug use can have on individuals and their families. As a former heavy user of multiple hard drugs (I've been clean for just under 2 years now) myself, and as someone who's little sister has been to jail for being in a relationship with a drug dealer and will now be a felon for the rest of her life, and as someone who's best friend for many years is currently destroying his life due to his addiction, I've had plenty of first-hand experience with these impacts. I've grown a healthy hatred for the terrible ways some of these substances can affect people's lives, but what I hate even more than that is the system we have put in place, which is intended to protect us from these harms, that in reality only magnifies the problem.

It would seem to me that government should be attempting to both reduce the use of drugs and also the impact of drug use on society. If that is the case then by profiting from the sale of drugs the government would have a clear conflict of interest.

I would argue that it should be the goal of the government to try to reduce the harm caused by the use of drugs rather than the actual use of the drugs themselves, hence most drugs are legal and only a select few (deemed dangerous despite the fact that many legal drugs are equally if not far more dangerous) are illegal. But whichever way you phrase it the result is the same: Prohibition has failed at that task. There is mountains of evidence to support that. Drug use continues to rise despite scare tactics and excessively growing punishments, and "drug related" (read: prohibition-related) crime grows along side it. How could you not expect people, especially the destitute and impoverished, not to violently fight tooth and nail over the right to sell a product when you make the profits so ludicrously high through the inflation caused by prohibition? How can you possibly expect to be able to effective police a victimless "crime" where everyone involved is consentual and making every attempt to avoid notice? The current system is set up for failure. In order to properly reduce the harm caused by drug use you would first need a system that does not excessively punish the victims of the drug (ie. decriminalization), but also one that does not reward criminals with an extremely price-inflated product that is easily accessed, unregulated and profitable (ie. legalization).

In regards to the second sentence about the government making money off the sales of drugs, I think you misinterpreted the example I was giving. The heroin would be offered by the government to registered users for free, the government would make no money from this, it would actually cost them money. Would tax payers approve paying for a social program that supports someone else's drug addicted child? I think they would, when you compare it to the yearly $69 billion they spend now in America in an attempt to catch drug law offenders, process them, and house them in overcrowded prisons. And that is just one example, maybe other less habitual and more recreational drugs like ecstasy or lsd would be offered at liquor stores or cafes by private companies similar to alcohol or cigarettes. This is just a thought experiment, I not suggesting that what I'm saying should be implemented verbatim.

Yeah, I think the evidence is conclusive that the majority of recreational drugs are indeed negative for your health (indeed a recent study by Dr Chris Dayas suggests that drug addiction can permanently change your brain chemistry). By the same token, it is far from conclusive that the legalisation of drugs reduces drug usage. While there is certainly evidence to suggest that some exceedingly authoritarian approaches to drug usage have exceedingly negative results, it does seem fairly intuitive that if you ban a substance less people will use it. It's obviously equally important and ethical to not punish people for addictions and not to be too sever on punishment for crimes where the there is only a potential for harm, rather than genuine harm.

For the most part I agree with everything you say here. The only part that is a little foggy with me is that banning a substance effectively reduces its use (assuming that by saying this you are inferring that then legalizing it would increase its use). It seems logical to me that if all recreational drugs were legalized tomorrow, drug use would spike. Certainly current users would use more unabashedly and frequently, and there would likely be a much smaller group of curious non-users that would try it out now that they are not as afraid of the repercussions. That would taper off though, regular users would probably resume their normal habits, and the initial bout of curiosity would where off with time. One demographic where I think there would be a distinct decline in usage would be underaged children. With the control of distribution and sales done by businesses and professionals there would need to be regulations put on the sales just as there are for alcohol and prescription drugs. Say for example to buy marijuana or mushrooms you would need to be at least 21 years of age, and to be eligible for free herion from a clinic you would need to be registered and take regular drug tests to prove you are still an active user. This makes it much harder for ineligible children to get a hold of these substances. Store owners don't want to risk losing their license or business to sell a product to a child. Illegal drug dealers on the other hand don't care who you are or how old you are, one thing matters to them: money, if you can show it to them, it's a done deal. I certainly know that in America, especially in urban areas, it is MUCH more difficult for underaged kids to buy legal restricted drugs like alcohol or cigarettes than it is for them to buy illegal unrestricted drugs. But even if overall usage were to raise slightly, the self inflicted damage that would cause to individuals is nothing compared to current myriad of issues we now face as a result of failed prohibition.

I think because of the nature of recreational drugs, and the fact that people are so different, it's impossible to find a simple solution to the problem, and regardless of what solution you choose, there are going to be people who effectively lose. The best approach needs to be a scientifically minded risk management approach.

Right, the solution is not simple and you can't satisfy everyone, that's why it must be utilitarian approach. It needs to best benefit the majority of the people. I can't think of anything to better fit that bill than complete legalization.


I haven't even gotten into how appalling the prohibition of the use of some of these substances should be to someone who values freedom and personal liberty. That might be for another topic though.

[BainbridgeShred]

1. I've never claimed that decriminalisation would reduce marijuana usage. I think I stated, or certainly will now, treating drug addicts and users as criminals does not reduce marijuana usage either. Decriminalising marijuana can be seen to have the effect of reducing crime and saving the government money in reduced legal costs and reducing pressure from the courts. When I see reducing crime, I don't mean that the crime of "possession of weed" is no longer reported, I mean that people who go to jail (for any crime) are much more likely to commit further crime, than people who do not go to jail. So by not sending people to jail for drug offences, they are less likely to commit other crimes later on.

Nothing to disagree with here. Again, we're one the same side of this issue for the most part, only finding disagreement in the implementation on new policies. We both agree that a new policy is in order.

2. When I stated "I suspect this is mainly an American issue," I meant exactly what I said. Notice the difference in meaning between "I suspect" and "I know." I don't know what the procedures are in America. In Australia there is a very highly regulated system, such that authorities are aware of exactly how much of all prescription drugs a pharmacist has, and also how many prescriptions they fill. Thus the issue of "corrupt pharmacists" is non existent. I don't know how the rest of the world works, and I'm sure there are some less regulated countries, but certainly many that are at least as controlled as Australia. I'm sure you don't know the details in other countries either, so I think the concern you raised is one you see in your own country, not one that you personally notice in many countries.

I find this both very funny, but also very depressing. It isn't unusual that the general populace, even those amongst them who consider themselves well informed, generally let huge drug abuse problems go unnoticed. But for Jeremy to imagine that his "highly regulated system" is somehow the answer to stopping drugs being peddled in pharmacie's from getting peddled on the street, is absolutely ridiculous, and shows you how out of touch he is on matters such as this.

Lets take a look shall we? http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/aus ... 10521.html

Professor John Saunders of the University of Queensland said that while illicit street drugs grabbed headlines, the misuse of prescription medicine was the "real drug crisis gripping Australia".

"There are 75,000 regular users of heroin in Australia but this pales in comparison to the 150,000 people abusing prescribed opioids and 300,000 abusing benzodiazepines," he said.

Professor Saunders is a member of the Australian National Council on Drugs and holds a post with the World Health Organisation. Australia has one of the world's highest rates of prescription drug abuse, he said.

Now Jeremy will of course come in here and backtrack, saying that it isn't the Pharmacist's who have their hands in the pie, but the people who are getting the perscriptions filled out for themselves, who are in turn selling the stuff on the street. Now I haven't found any statistics to back up either claim, but either way it isn't really relevent. Drugs sold in Australian pharmacy's are getting out into the street in record numbers, and it has devulged into quite the little problem. Obviously, it is probably both Pharmacists and ordinary perscription fillers who have become street dealers, so again the point is moot in light of the crisis. Besides, Jeremy, do you really think that any major country like Australia is capable of keeping tabs on all the perscription drugs in every pharmacy across your island continent? Of course not. You're highly regulated system fucking sucks, and because of it young Australian's are falling victim to the disease of addiction, while people in your government get rich off the companies making the drugs.

Of course it's important to note that my position is the same position that many countries currently hold and practice. While your position Dan, is a position that no country in the world holds or practices. No doubt the numerous developed countries that have decriminalised recreational drug use and do allow people to use recreational drugs for medical conditions are as unaware of how certain markets work as I am. It's interesting that there are no countries as enlightened about how the world works as you are.

Cool Jeremy. Awesome. The world is facing a drug epedemic. Your governments and your highly regulated systems (LMAO) have failed society and everyone who has fallen victim to drugs- especially those whose drug of choice happens to be one sold by people in white coats, not black hoodies.


Again, I don't think we disagree too heavily as far as plans to legalize or decriminalize weed or whatever you want to do to lower the cost spent by the government on policing such silliness. However, some of your other posistions show your complete ignorance on this issue.

[BainbridgeShred]

Also, I should add here that I think during the course of the discussion both of our views got relitively skewed, not by ourselves or one another, but just the nature of trying to discuss something on this medium.

[Jeremy]

Just to be clear, the problem in Australia is people who are given prescriptions to drugs they are addicted to, not a problem with them using those drugs illicitly, and when we say problem; while it is certainly a problem, people aren't committing crimes on the street to pay for their habits and their lives aren't going to shit. They're still working their jobs and they're still keeping food on the table. They're just going to the doctor once a month to get a prescription for drugs they don't need (or do need, in one sense, but I'm sure you know what I mean).

[The Actual Sized E]

I find that a little hard to believe after the numbers Dan posted. Do all these abusers have indefinite prescriptions that they can pick up as often as they like? If their prescription runs out, do these addicts just decide that they're done and go back to their regular unaddicted lives? If there is that kind of need for a substance which is not fully provided in a licit manner, then it will made available other ways. I also have trouble believing that in a case like that, where addiction is involved but the substance is not completely and legally available that crime and some degree of "lives going to shit" wouldn't also be involved.

[slapdash21]

i've heard theres a significantly greater chance of getting high when you smoke weed than any tobacco product.

i have graph.

[Jeremy]

I find that a little hard to believe after the numbers Dan posted. Do all these abusers have indefinite prescriptions that they can pick up as often as they like? If their prescription runs out, do these addicts just decide that they're done and go back to their regular unaddicted lives? If there is that kind of need for a substance which is not fully provided in a licit manner, then it will made available other ways. I also have trouble believing that in a case like that, where addiction is involved but the substance is not completely and legally available that crime and some degree of "lives going to shit" wouldn't also be involved.

Some opioids, especially Neurofen Plus are available without a prescription, and indeed there was an article in the news very recently about pharmacists being warned about people abusing Neurofen Plus.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23 ... 02,00.html

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/conten ... 869461.htm

"The Australian Federal Police was today unable to say whether trafficking of prescription drugs and counterfeiting was a problem in Australia." 12th of March 2007


In fact you only need to read the source Dan gave, to see that it's talking about people getting prescription drugs, not buying the illicitly.

"Benzodiazepines, more commonly known as tranquillisers or sleeping pills, are prescribed by doctors for sleep problems or anxiety.

"A substantial portion of the adult population use benzos to help them sleep, but they can easily develop an addiction. It can take as little as two weeks of regular use to become dependent on the drug."



Anti-anxiety drugs are famously over prescribed. A fried of mine went to the doctor a few years ago with a headache and the doctor told her; "I'm not sure what's wrong, but I'm going to prescribe you Valium." If you go into the doctors and say "I'm having trouble sleeping, I'm really stressed," there's a very good chance you'll be prescribed some kind of anti-anxiety drug, and if you go back next time, and every time for the rest of your life and say; "that's really helping doc, I can sleep much better now" you'll keep getting prescribed the same drug. It's also good to put it in perspective. 1 in 50 people in Australia abuse prescription drugs. On the other hand, 1 in 12 people in Australia will get prostate cancer, and half those people don't have a prostate.