"And yes, it has been shown that PER user, the damage done from alcohol (at least in the UK) is more costly to society than smoking weed."

And why is the lesson from that that we should legalize weed, even if true? You know what's more dangerous than weed or alcohol? Smoking weed and drinking alcohol together. Thanks for making that a more viable option.

"Infact i believe someone went to the trouble of visualising it: www.informationisbeautiful.net/2009/visualising-the-guardian-datablog/"

And here we go again with the automobile (and similar) arguments. I guess the solution there is to make those other drugs more widely available too, right? Gotta make sure we got as many dangerous substances out there as humanly possible, especially ones that serve no medical purpose whatsoever.

@ora - I can't speak for SillyPutty, but my concern was with the statement of the "majority" of illicit drugs were safer than alcohol. I've no doubt mary jane is safer, statistically speaking. But you will never convince me that meth or crack/coke or heroine is safer. Anything you shoot up carries the OD and AIDS risks and crack and coke have a real risk of heart failure every time you use them.

@Putin - Many states in this great nation of ours *do* recognize the medical benefits of pot. Your statement is disingenuous at best and, mor elikely, an outright and blatant fabrication because you know damn well that Ohio is considering legalizing pot as well.

"You never answered my question about what is an example of an example mechanism of cause & effect you believe in. I have no interest in debating someone who just shouts out 'correlation doesn't equal causation' after every post. My guess is stereotypes about potheads being 'passive' is sufficient for you to believe that potheads aren't more apt to commit crimes. Except the statistics show otherwise"

Sorry, didn't see that.

Well, I think addiction is one route that leads to a life of crime and violence. But, to that point, there are many legal substances that are more addictive than MDMA, pot, LSD, psyclobin, etc. and there isn't anyone making an argument about them leading to violence so it's a little mirky as to where to draw the line.

A loss of a sense of reality combined with increased aggression and decreased inhibition is certainly a mechanism. But that really doesn't characterize all drugs. Especially the aggression and inhibition parts.

Really, I'm not too sure. It wasn't meant to be a rhetorical question. There MUST be some reason that the drugs are making people commit violent crimes, right? I don't need stereotypes about potheads but I fail to see how someone freaking out on acid is going to be waving a gun at a shop clerk - or at least how it's more like that someone on acid would.

Well, in the defense of drugs = violent crime, the harder drugs tend to have a higher physical and financial cost which results in a desperate need to get high while not having the funds to purchase the necessary product, thereby resulting in violent crimes to get the said funds to purchase the product or commiting a violent crime to steal the product outright.

But that argument goes away with legalization where the drugs become affordable because there is no risk and they are just another product to be pruchased by the consumer of age.

And medical marijuana has proven to be the trojan horse for full on legalized recreational pot that we all knew it would be. Furthermore, it is an immunosuppressant and increases the risk of infection, so the idea of giving it to seriously ill patients is medical malpractice.

"harder drugs tend to have a higher physical and financial cost"

Not necessarily true. Weed is definitely more costly than many 'harder' drugs as well as possibly being harder on the body.

Except... no it's not.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Does_marijuana_affect_your_immune_system

The mechanism which may lead to increased violence among potheads is the fact that marijuana increases anxiety, irritability and stress levels, especially those who undergo withdrawal. It also increases paranoia.

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/evidence99/marijuana/Health_1.html

Damn, Harvard must be lying then.

'And why is the lesson from that that we should legalize weed, even if true?'

I never even made that claim. I said it is inconsistant to say a less dangerous drug should be criminalized and a more dangerous on is fine.

It is not logical to say 'this is damaging, but less than that so let's legalize it'
So i didn't say that.

'And here we go again with the automobile (and similar) arguments. I guess the solution there is to make
those other drugs more widely available too, right'

No, if you'd bothered to read the link it is about % reported deaths, that is total deaths caused and how many made the (british) news - there difference between precieved risk and actual risk. Really important if you're going to try and talk about the truth.

@draug: sorr i think that was someone else's statement about 'most' drugs - but i THINK heroin withdrawal (cold turkey for a few days) will not kill you, but alcohol withdrawal will. (that does not mean there are more alcohol deaths, and the alcohol is a more dangerous drug, just that alcohol withdrawal is pretty hard, heroin withdrawal is still going to fuck you up, but i happens to not be fatal... Though i suspect you could choke on your vommit)

http://www.ukcia.org/research/EffectsOfMarijuanaOnLungAndImmuneDefenses.php

Effects of Marijuana on the Immune System

In vitro and animal studies

The recent finding of cannabinoid receptors (to which THC binds) on white blood cells (Bouaboula et al.1993) is consistent with observations that THC is capable of influencing immune responses. In vitro and animal studies suggest that THC has a general immunosuppressive effect on a variety of immune cells, induding rnacrophages, natural killer cells, and T cells (Burnette Curley and Cabral 1995; Huber et al. 1975, 1980; Klein et al. 1991; Kusher et al. 1994). Mice exposed to D9THC were unable to develop protective immunity against lung infection by Legionella pneumophilia, an opportunistic pathogen (Newton et al. 1994).

Immune deficits in marijuana smokers

As noted above, alveolar macrophages from the lungs of healthy, habitual marijuana smokers were suppressed in their ability to kill fungaland bacterial organisms, as well as tumor cells. Moreover, the same cells were suppressed in their ability to release proinflarnmatory cytokines. These findings suggest that marijuana is an immunosuppressant with clinically significant effects on host defense, which could have potentially serious health consequences in patients with preexisting immune deficits due to AIDS, organ transplantation (receiving immunosuppressive therapy to prevent rejection of the transplant), or cancer (receiving immunosuppressive chemotherapy). The latter possibility is supported by reports of fungal and bacterial pneumonias in patients with AIDS or organ transplantation who used marijuana (Caiaffa et al. 1994; Denning et al. 1991). Moreover, among HIV-positive individuals, active marijuana use has been found to be a significant risk factor for rapid progression from HIV infection toAIDS and acquisition of opportunistic infections and/or Kaposi's sarcoma (Tindall et al. 1988).

"should be criminalized and a more dangerous on is fine.
"

What did I say was 'fine'? I never said alcohol was fine. Looks like you're just making stuff up now. Hard to ever tell what your position is on any issue. You rail against criminalization but yet then say you're not for legalization. Whatever.

Oh and putin, you can keep posting links and acqusing other of ignoring your points, but you still haven't addressed what i said about decriminalizing and the incentive to commit a crime when you're already a criminal for non-violent drug use.

It's not like drug induced violence would be decriminalised.

Yes I have addressed it. Stop projecting your own ignoring of points on me. I said you provided no proof whatsoever that the primary or even an important reason why drug users commit crimes is because of the fact that its 'criminalization' precludes them from gainful legal employment. I also addressed the point that non-violent users aren't, actually, in prison, and I did so many many times now.

' no proof whatsoever that the primary or even an important reason why drug
users commit crimes is because of the fact that its 'criminalization' precludes them
from gainful legal employment.'

But 75% of violent crimes are committed by sober people, you provided no proof that legalization wouldn't decearse this crime rate.

We're both without proof, and i haven't taken a position, because i know you're logic is flawed, you keep trying to point at holes in my logic as if i've been trying to prove legalization is best.

My points remain valid even if they don't amount to proof. I don't take a definite stance because i don't have proof either way.

I believe Harvard LAW when it comes to LAW stuff. I do not take Harvard LAW's word at face value when it comes to MEDICAL stuff.

Sober at the time of arrest. Not sober in general because most violent criminuals use drugs or have used them frequently. The proof of increased crime is in the netherlands.

But anyway no country has legalized hard drugs, so youre just asking for the unobtainable.

Nor scientific studies, but wiki is truth.

@ora - Yes, it was Lando made the "majority" claim. So sorry for the confusion.

@Yonni - Sorry, but meth, crack, smoked cocaine, and most other hard drugs cost more to buy than pot and are *physically* addictive. Pot is not.

'So the only reason people on drugs commit crimes is they 'can't find a job' because
they're a criminal. And naturally you have proof of that. Oh wait I forgot, the legalizers
never need proof of any of their claims.'

Sorry i missed this post : your 'proof' that drug use increases violence (whatever the percentagw is you don't have proof that these individual would NOT be violent without drugs... Nor that increased drug use would lead to inceeased violence... Nor the increased availability, legalization amd regulation would increase drug use... Nor that taxation of drug money which could be spent on policing would lead to a less safe society... You basically have no proof of anything, but that weed can cause immuno-deppressive effects. And the violence and drugs have a coorelation - and yet you ignore my points that some of these complex problems have obvious causal effects which would reduce with legalization - it can't prove that the net efrect would be a reduction in violence or drug use... But you can't prove the reverse BECAUSE there are numerous causal links, it's a complex non-linear relationship between violence, criminality, drug use.... And lots of other factors.

So you just came down on the side of the status quo; without reason. I guess you feel safer with the current system, it can't get worse if we don't change anything, right? I mean it can't get any better either, but i guess you don't care about that you're just acting on emotion...

Ever noticed how Putin is all for "right to choose" when it comes to killing babies but not when it comes to altering one's own consciousness.

Yeah, cause your animal studies aren't on humans...

You've got enough there to indicate studying humans immune responce is worthwhile putting effort into, but not evidence that weed actually does MORE damage than tabaccoo or caffine or alcohol... Merely that it probably is worse for your, and that some indications that if you are otherwise immuno-compromised it may be even worse... Not that this matter to cancer suffers who are liable to die anyway, nor chronic pain suffers who have very good immune systems... In fact if the immunosuppressant effect can be proven in humans that opens up the use of cannabis for treat auto-immune diseases. So did you actually have a point?

'Ever noticed how Putin is all for "right to choose" when it comes to killing babies but
not when it comes to altering one's own consciousness.'

+1 to that. Though i suspect killing babies does not correlate with other violent crimes committed to fund illegal abortions... Or more generally 'damage others in society'

And ora makes this rant but isnt a legalizer. Also didnt realize youd resort to invoking killing babies in order to promote legalization. Because obviously shoving rods up women is on par with keeping dangerous substances illegal. If that counts as logic then fuck logic.

What would constitute proof to you, ora? My guess is nothing. But hey you having no proof your legalization scheme will work hasnt prevented you from promoting 'change'

I thought 'change' was your party's catch word, Putin...

Change we can believe in. Key qualifier.