Hey, you, get off my cloud
| 16 September, 2010 | Richard P. Grant |
13
|
|
Roger Pertwee is one of our newer Faculty Members, in Pharmacology and Drug Discovery. Back in March he reviewed a paper that showed a non-psychoactive (where’s the fun in that?) component of cannabis can reduce metastasis by inhibiting the activity of a matrix metalloproteinase (free link).
He’s now been quoted in the Daily Telegraph as saying cannabis should be licensed. His comments were made at the British Science Festival in Birmingham.
What do you think?
[poll id=”9″]
|
|
previous post
1. This is a bit country-specific, isn’t it?
2. There is no “Yes, but only if that means it can also be recognized in other legislations, such as “don’t drive when high” and “only in designated smoking areas” etc,” and the example 21 age limit also seems kind of a random number, especially for the UK (which this seems to be aimed at), where the legal age for drinking and tobacco is lower than that. The benefit of legalizing is not so much to let everyone light up when they want, but that you can actually set boundaries to what is and what isn’t allowed. You can say “this amount is legal, this amount is definitely not” or “you can own a bit, but not sell it” (which is what I *think* the official Dutch law is – at least something along those lines)
So, didn’t vote, didn’t like any of the answers. =) It’s not such a black and white issue as it seems.
1. No, not really. The article is country-specific, but I’m asking a pretty general question.
2. That’s implied with option #1, really. The age came from Prof Pertwee’s recommendation in the article, and should also appeal to US readers, who are quite familiar with the age of consent.
Of course, I could run a poll with 27 different answers, but that gets a bit unwieldy.
I read option 1 more as “Party on, duuuude” than any consideration for additional legalization.
Here in Massachusetts, pot has been decriminalized and nobody seemed to notice the difference. Just like when we legalized same sex marriage, life just goes on, despite dire warnings to the contrary. What REALLY needs to happen is to fully legalize it, GROW it locally and TAX the HELL out of it so we can all benefit from this new golden age of federal and state income. Such a simple idea could balance the federal budget, support local schools and emergency repsonders, and empty countless jail cells. It seems like if you scratch the surface, most adults enjoy a puff o’ weed every once in a while anyways. Here is a good survey: What percentage of the general population smokes up a bit? Break it down into Blue collar, White collar, and Ring Around the collar and see what you get.
Although I did vote (option 2) I completely agree with Eva. I am in the US so 21 makes sense here, but where that number comes from for the UK is baffling. Richard, I would suggest that you modify the first statement or add a choice that says, “allowing cannabis to be treated similar to current alcohol and tobacco laws.” This would be country specific and succinctly cover all of the concerns brought forth by Eva.
@Brad, sensible option. Maybe if I write the paper I’ll thank the reviewers for their helpful comments 😉
I personally don’t think it should be. For one, I don’t want any government legislation telling me where and when I can buy it or smoke it. Second, do we really need to unleash a known overeating-inducing product on the masses in the time of a “growing”(i.e., obese) society- (that’s not country specific)? I could go on and on, but these two reasons seem enough to me….
I agree with Eva, the first choice is biased as there is always something that can go wrong with any medical treatment. Also, licensed is different than legalized – it implies limited legalization (i.e. prescription medication). “Legalized” would mean recreational as well, which is not the aim of the medical community. The trouble with legislating medical cannabis thus far is that those who advocate it are portrayed as being wannabe stoners or recreational users, when we are just trying to make medical treatments available to ease the suffering of patients*, most of whom are terminal or in extreme pain. Making a jab on the un-fun nature of nonpsychoactive cannabis does not help the cause.
Ideally, you would have a choice on the poll “Yes, but with safety regulation like any other medication”. Let’s not muddy the discussion any more by mixing recreational and medical arguments.
*I do advocate the legalization of recreational cannabis on the magnitude of alcohol or tobacco regulation, but I separate the medical and recreational arguments because they are two different concepts and will require different sets of laws and be governed by different regulatory agencies.
Much of the argument about medical use and/or legalization of marijuana is based in the broader debate about herbal ‘remedies’ vs rigorously defined therapeutic agents. Indeed, the FDA approved in 1985 two chemically defined cannabinoids (Marinol Capsules, Unimed; Cesamet Capsules, not marketed in US) for medical use in the United States, but not herbal marijuana. The cannabinoid products were approved for treatment of nausea and vomiting associated with cancer treatment. In 1992, Marinol Capsules were also approved for treatment of anorexia in AIDS patients. In general, FDA does not approve herbal preparations for therapy because it cannot adequately evaluate health claims nor standarize dosages in order to assure safe use. FDA has addressed herbal products under its authority to regulate food. There continues to be research to discover appropriate uses of cannabinoids as therapeutic agents. ‘Legalization’ of cannabis takes many forms, so slogans stir emotions but not enlightenment. A strong argument can be made for decriminalization of marijuana use by ‘adults,’ which does not permit acts that disturb the peace or endanger others.
Marijuana should be legalized for both medical use and recreational use, absolutely without question. The argument that it is not perfectly safe is, to me, absurd. There is not a single drug on the market, prescription or OTC that does not have possible negative side effects, and most are considerably worse than marijuana. Legalizing marijuana as done in New Jersey, USA is to me also absurd. You have to have a severe illnesses like cancer, AIDS, Lou Gehrig’s disease, muscular dystrophy or multiple sclerosis to qualify, this completely denies patients of the multitude of other uses that have nothing to do with such sever illnesses yet significantly effect the quality of life. If we look at the accompanying article on antitumor activity of cannabinoids one might suggest it should be taken as a prophylactic for cancer, something I would far more prefer than waiting until I get cancer to try and fight it.
Regarding recreational use, marijuana is clearly safer than alcohol period. One of the primary reasons users of marijuana may come into contact with other far more dangerous drugs is its illegality. Countless citizens are arrested for possession of this substance, causing alienation and disenfranchisement form society, not to mention heavy financial burdens on otherwise law abiding productive people. Absurd.
If legalized, money that now goes to truly frightening and dangerous drug cartels could go to local and federal governments for a multitude of beneficial social needs. The legal age for buying it should be equivalent to the age one can join the military in the US or to buy alcohol in other countries were the drinking age is lower than the age for joining the military.
I’m with Matthew on this one. Though I would go further. We should not cede the moral high ground to people who demand making drugs illegal. There are two fundamental philosophies here – whether adults have an individual right to run their lives according to their own judgement, without interference from people who think differently, or whether the Wise State should tell us what to do. Scratch the surface of the latter and what you see is the arrogance of someone who thinks they have the wit and wisdom to run other people’s lives. I’ve yet to meet one who measures up to that unstated claim. When someone tells you that ethics demand that we pass a law to control the personal behaviour of someone else – it is their ethics we should question.
I agree with Gaylen Bradley that, judging by existing publications, cannabinoid research may offer patients an alternative to marijuana that does not require them to get “high” to enjoy significant therapeutic benefits. Unfortunately, gentle logic and quiet persuasion don’t seem to have gotten the ball rolling. So far as I know, cannabidiol, a powerful anti-emetic, remains at schedule I in the U.S. ( http://www.fasebj.org/cgi/content/meeting_abstract/22/1_MeetingAbstracts/711.1 ). Patients have no federally recognized option to use it, but can be prescribed Marinol (THC) — the most powerful hallucinogen in cannabis.
Likewise, in the social arena, enforcement agencies have tried to destroy drug supply without a balancing reduction in demand, without taking into account the effect that increased scarcity and higher prices has had in funding militarized gang organizations.
Anti-drug efforts trample on civil liberties, consume immense amounts of money in enforcement and prisons, and run up a serious trade deficit for small bundles of plant matter. These efforts have greatly hampered research, raised up gangs, stirred up social discord, and for what reason? There is no plan for victory. There is not even a realistic plan (other than legalization) to keep the cartels from continuing to expand and deeply invading this country. Drug prohibition and the ensuing drug smuggling trade turned a rare vice into a national humiliation that devastated China in the 1800s, and America has few chances left to avoid suffering the same fate.
I don’t understand Ang’s reasoning. He doesn’t want the government telling him where and when to smoke cannibus, but doesn’t mind when the government tells him not to smoke it at all? I think you should go on and list more reasons.