Usa compared to amsterdam crime rates

[Asguard]

Then why the hell do you keep talking about it? You could not only lose your own job, career and go to jail but you could end up doing the same to your doctor who was trying to help you. You really think the internet is anonymous? You should know better concidering you worked in the DPPs office

[Asguard]

There is something else I find fascinating, People such as yourself believe they have the right to circumvent the law even to treat your pain yet the majority of drug addicts are mentally ill and trying to self medicate to treat that illness and yet they are just "evil drug addicts"

[Bells]

Then why the hell do you keep talking about it? You could not only lose your own job, career and go to jail but you could end up doing the same to your doctor who was trying to help you. You really think the internet is anonymous? You should know better concidering you worked in the DPPs office

With the exception of my children, everyone knew. I have yet to hear the police arresting cancer patients for smoking cannabis in minute quantities because it helped with the nausea and pain. So less panic next time? Okay?

[Bells]

There is something else I find fascinating, People such as yourself believe they have the right to circumvent the law even to treat your pain yet the majority of drug addicts are mentally ill and trying to self medicate to treat that illness and yet they are just "evil drug addicts"

Where did I call mentally ill drug addicts "evil drug addicts"?

I didn't have "the right" to circumvent the law. I did what I felt was best for myself and my health. It was not a right. It was pure dumb luck. At no time did I ever impose what I was ingesting on anyone. Quite the contrary. While people knew, they also understood and helped (like my friends who used to pick me up and carry me to the bottom of the yard and walk away so that I could take a few puffs which then allowed me to keep down the tablets and some food).

Just as they understand that drug addicts need help. I have lost a lot of people very close to me, and whom I loved, to drugs. At no time did I consider them "evil drug addicts". What I considered them were victims of circumstance who needed help.

So before you judge based on what is going on in your head instead of reality, ask first.

[adoucette]

There is something else I find fascinating, People such as yourself believe they have the right to circumvent the law even to treat your pain yet the majority of drug addicts are mentally ill and trying to self medicate to treat that illness and yet they are just "evil drug addicts"

And so if your partner had cancer and the Chemo she needed to save her from the Cancer was killing her because she couldn't eat, and when she did, she couldn't keep it down, and the very expensive prescription anti-nausea pills didn't work, instead of taking a slight risk by breaking the law to get her something which DOES work, instead you'd tell her, "tough luck, I guess you're going to die because I'm not going to break a drug law to help you"?

Really?

I HOPE you (or your partner) never have to face this dilemma

[Balerion]

Is that what I said? Or are you reading between the lines?

Honestly, it was a rhetorical device meant to put you in a difficult position--either agreeing that alcohol should be doctor-prescribed and appearing crazy, or disagreeing and appearing inconsistent.

I'm...sorry.

Cannabis is known to increase the chances of mental illness, especially in younger and still developing brains (ie teenagers and young adults) and those who may have a pre-disposition for schizophrenia.. In some, even a small amount can literally make them suffer from a psychotic episode.

Yeah, but we're talking about a small minority of people here, aren't we? And again, kids are going to find ways to smoke this stuff whether it's legal or not, so arguing the potential health risks is useless, in my opinion. The only salient point is that prohibition does not work, and is too costly to sustain.

We do not allow the sale of alcohol to minors for a reason. I do think that in the event of legalising cannabis, it should also be restricted in a similar fashion. Especially when you realise that the cannabis of today will contain much higher levels of THC, which is what scientists attribute to the possible connection to psychosis after the use of cannabis.

Due to its popularity--as well as the general ignorance of what marijuana actually does (ie the perception that it's dangerous to drive when high, for example)--I can't imagine a scenario in which there wouldn't be an age restriction. But I really don't see the need. If teenagers want to smoke, they'll find a way. I know I did!

Is it as dangerous as alcohol? Personally I would say yes. And I have used the stuff for medicinal purposes in the last two years as it was the only thing that helped with the nausea and pain. But my usage of it was controlled and monitored by my doctors - ie they also went through my medical history and that of my family's to make sure there was a reduced chance that I was predisposed to a psychiatric illness.. The risk of course is that the levels of THC I was getting was much higher, but it was something I had to be very careful about in every way. The same cannot be said for the average teenagers who are lighthing up joints on every occasion and smoking god knows what else along with it.. It needs to be controlled and it should not be sold to teenagers and young adults unless it is controlled and monitored.

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "dangerous." Alcohol leads to about 75,000 deaths in the US every year. Do we know how many deaths weed-related psychosis cause? I know that causing death is not the only measure of danger, but let's be real here: there is no possible way that marijuana damages lives the way alcohol does, by any measure.

I don't disagree with you. But I do think that in the event of it being decriminalised, it should be controlled as one controls alcohol and tobacco in that it cannot be sold to adults and lower doses, or dope with lower levels of THC, are sold and the funds gained from that would go towards funding education and rehabilitation centres for more harder drugs.

Is it the THC that's causing the heath problems? I didn't see that in the link you provided. Anyway, I guess I wouldn't have a problem with that, so long as the drug itself is decriminalized.

But that's just pot. I would personally decriminalize them all.

[Aqueous Id]

(like my friends who used to pick me up and carry me to the bottom of the yard and walk away so that I could take a few puffs which then allowed me to keep down the tablets and some food).

Would that we could, any of us would do the same for you. May you kick your illness right in its nuclear DNA. And may the wonder treatment that resolves it come from the work of some budding genius who one day came upon one of your posts and got inspired.

I think legalization of medical marijuana is justified by your experience, and it probably helps that cause when you openly oppose its recreational use, since it shows sincerity and helps bring focus back to the central issue for voters, which is whether it actually has therapeutic benefits.

[Aqueous Id]

I got to wondering how much the issue with pot really has to do with the crime rate in Holland. Certainly the drug policy there reflects a larger attitude towards the role of government in private lives. But is it all negative, I wondered. Does it boil down to measuring the degree of prohibition? I went off looking for something else that could refect Dutch positivity and something broader than the drug issue. I came across this. The writer is an American in Holland, speaking of the Dutch welfare contributions to the needy:

Friends who have small children report that the government can reimburse as much as 70 percent of the cost of day care, which totals around $14,000 per child per year. In late May of last year an unexpected $4,265 arrived in my account: vakantiegeld. Vacation money. This money materializes in the bank accounts of virtually everyone in the country just before the summer holidays; you get from your employer an amount totaling 8 percent of your annual salary, which is meant to cover plane tickets, surfing lessons, tapas: vacations. And we aren’t talking about a mere “paid vacation” — this is on top of the salary you continue to receive during the weeks you’re off skydiving or snorkeling. And by law every employer is required to give a minimum of four weeks’ vacation. For that matter, even if you are unemployed you still receive a base amount of vakantiegeld from the government, the reasoning being that if you can’t go on vacation, you’ll get depressed and despondent and you’ll never get a job.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/03/ma...pagewanted=all

To me that last sentence epitomizes the attitude that might actually reduce crime. When a society reaches to the root causes of disturbances in the well-being of individuals, and seeks to offset them proactively, doesn't this have a deterrent or rehabilitative effect on potential criminals? If anything, it's an appeal to reason, something rare in the polemic of public policy, at least in my native USA.

Welfare is very costly to Dutch taxpayers who probably average about 50% higher taxes than the upper bracket in the US. Now go figure the cost of incarcerating 2 million Americans, and the insidious effect this has, to brutalize people who are already demonstrating disturbed behavior.

Perhaps the decline of crime in Holland is a windfall of their proactive attitude. Anyone can complain about cost. But who is willing to stand up and demand that human costs be better accounted for? Are the Dutch simply seeing return on their investment? Is their decline in crime just the consequence of modeling cost more broadly than countries like the US?

Maybe the big picture has been blurred for so long by the strident right wing that average Americans have completely lost their sense of center. How is the American experience not just a reflection of a persistent denial of that bit of advice that says "it is better to be penny-wise than pound-foolish"?

[Asguard]

And so if your partner had cancer and the Chemo she needed to save her from the Cancer was killing her because she couldn't eat, and when she did, she couldn't keep it down, and the very expensive prescription anti-nausea pills didn't work, instead of taking a slight risk by breaking the law to get her something which DOES work, instead you'd tell her, "tough luck, I guess you're going to die because I'm not going to break a drug law to help you"?

Really?

I HOPE you (or your partner) never have to face this dilemma

What a surprise, you missed the point.

[Diode-Man]

This world is more sour than pure lemon juice.

[Bells]

Honestly, it was a rhetorical device meant to put you in a difficult position--either agreeing that alcohol should be doctor-prescribed and appearing crazy, or disagreeing and appearing inconsistent.

I'm...sorry.

Didn't turn out too well for you, did it?

Yeah, but we're talking about a small minority of people here, aren't we? And again, kids are going to find ways to smoke this stuff whether it's legal or not, so arguing the potential health risks is useless, in my opinion. The only salient point is that prohibition does not work, and is too costly to sustain.

How many teenagers smoke weed or ingest it? The research points to their being an increased risk to teenagers and young adults. Even more so if there is a history of mental illness in the family. While the symptoms may not appear quickly, they can appear later on in their lives. Time will tell.. Is it a risk you'd be willing to take with your kids?

I agree that prohibition does not work and instead, fuels the desire for it, especially amongst teenagers who wish to rebel. But it isn't just a matter of going 'here, have weed'. I personally feel, based on what I have seen an experienced professionally and personally, that it should be a controlled substance, much like alcohol and tobacco is controlled.

Due to its popularity--as well as the general ignorance of what marijuana actually does (ie the perception that it's dangerous to drive when high, for example)--I can't imagine a scenario in which there wouldn't be an age restriction. But I really don't see the need. If teenagers want to smoke, they'll find a way. I know I did!

Yes they will. However, having it sold like tobacco will lessen the social impact that teenagers feel they are having by breaking the rules of society and smoking it.. In Australia, there is a push to educate people about not just the dangers of drugs, but also what people do not think about - ie, driving while high..

While you and I may say that teenagers will smoke it if they want to anyway, you still wouldn't just hand it to them. I know I wouldn't.

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "dangerous." Alcohol leads to about 75,000 deaths in the US every year. Do we know how many deaths weed-related psychosis cause? I know that causing death is not the only measure of danger, but let's be real here: there is no possible way that marijuana damages lives the way alcohol does, by any measure.

And more people die because they speed in their cars.

How many people, in the midst of a psychotic episode either kill themselves or do something that leads to their deaths?

You either consider the fact that continued use of cannabis can increase one's chance of developing a mental illness like schizophrenia and even more so if there is a history of mental illness in one's family, and even more so if one ingests it while one's brain is still developing as being dangerous or you do not. Throwing in 'more people die from alchohol' is kind of beside the point. It does not lessen the very real risk to teenagers and young adults.

Is it the THC that's causing the heath problems? I didn't see that in the link you provided. Anyway, I guess I wouldn't have a problem with that, so long as the drug itself is decriminalized.

But that's just pot. I would personally decriminalize them all.

I do not disagree that it should be decriminalised. But in saying that, I wouldn't be handing it out to all and sundry because they feel like it either. Addicts should be able to get a prescription from their doctor to allow them to function normally and be treated for their addiction in the meantime.

[Balerion]

[QUOTE=Bells;2927138]Didn't turn out too well for you, did it?[quote]

It didn't exactly turn out poorly. You clarified your position, and we moved away from the notion of it being prescription-only, which is all I was really looking for.

How many teenagers smoke weed or ingest it? The research points to their being an increased risk to teenagers and young adults. Even more so if there is a history of mental illness in the family. While the symptoms may not appear quickly, they can appear later on in their lives. Time will tell.. Is it a risk you'd be willing to take with your kids?

The link you gave suggested that the risks seemed to decrease at 18 and above, but again, it doesn't really matter. Prohibition has the opposite effect it's supposed to, so we're better off with decriminalization or even legalization.

As for whether or not it's a risk I'd be willing to take with my kids, you're posing me a false premise. I wouldn't be taking any risk; my kids would. Whether or not weed is legal, the choice of whether or not to smoke it is up to them, not me. I will do my best to educate them, but just as I knew how horrible cigarettes were and puffed on anyway, there's only so much a parent can do.

I agree that prohibition does not work and instead, fuels the desire for it, especially amongst teenagers who wish to rebel. But it isn't just a matter of going 'here, have weed'. I personally feel, based on what I have seen an experienced professionally and personally, that it should be a controlled substance, much like alcohol and tobacco is controlled.

I was smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol looooooonnnnngg before I reached either of the legal ages. The drinking was social, and infrequent, but the smoking was a pack-a-day habit before I was old enough to legally purchase them.

Yes they will. However, having it sold like tobacco will lessen the social impact that teenagers feel they are having by breaking the rules of society and smoking it.. In Australia, there is a push to educate people about not just the dangers of drugs, but also what people do not think about - ie, driving while high..

Perhaps, but I certainly know that I felt like a "bad boy" when I started smoking cigarettes. I did it because I thought it was cool, and it made me feel like an adult. And the only reason I felt like an adult was because tobacco is regulated, and only adults are supposed to use it. If anyone could smoke at any age, would it still have appealed to me? Or would I just have written it off as a useless, stinky habit that stinky people do when they want to stink?

While you and I may say that teenagers will smoke it if they want to anyway, you still wouldn't just hand it to them. I know I wouldn't.

Well, I probably wouldn't, but that's not at all what we're talking about here. Decriminalization is not tantamount to handing some teenager a joint. If anything, it's probably taking a joint out of a kid's hand.

But make no mistake: if it came to him smoking it no matter what, and he could either get it from me, or some drug dealer who also has a pocketful of pink pills and white powder, you bet your ass he's getting his pot from me. The whole reason pot is a "gateway drug" is because the same people who sell it sell coke and pills and other hard drugs.

And more people die because they speed in their cars.

How many people, in the midst of a psychotic episode either kill themselves or do something that leads to their deaths?

You either consider the fact that continued use of cannabis can increase one's chance of developing a mental illness like schizophrenia and even more so if there is a history of mental illness in one's family, and even more so if one ingests it while one's brain is still developing as being dangerous or you do not. Throwing in 'more people die from alchohol' is kind of beside the point. It does not lessen the very real risk to teenagers and young adults.

My point is simply that it's a very real risk, but also a very small one. Red meat doubtlessly kills more people each year; should we regulate that, as well? I mean, don't get me wrong, if you want to regulate pot, I'm not going to fight you, but I'm not going to pretend that I agree that it's somehow necessary, or even that it's effective. Even controlling a substance in the way alcohol and tobacco are controlled only makes the substance more attractive to people who aren't supposed to be using it.

I do not disagree that it should be decriminalised. But in saying that, I wouldn't be handing it out to all and sundry because they feel like it either. Addicts should be able to get a prescription from their doctor to allow them to function normally and be treated for their addiction in the meantime.

You mean like pill addicts, who doctor- and pharmacist-shop so they can get their fix above and beyond their script?

Regulation is just something lawmakers do so they can tax us more. It doesn't stop anyone from using or abusing. You want to regulate because you think it's a moral responsibility, but it's effects are startlingly similar to those of prohibition, in that it creates a criminal culture, and turns sick people into inmates.

There certainly are ways to actually do some good without regulation. Again, I point to Denmark, a country that has gotten short-term and long-term usage to decline across the board.

[Bells]

I was smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol looooooonnnnngg before I reached either of the legal ages. The drinking was social, and infrequent, but the smoking was a pack-a-day habit before I was old enough to legally purchase them.

And how many teenagers now pick up that same habit? In Australia, there has been a general drop, due to a fairly rabid campaign and regulations in place which makes it a crime to sell tobacco to minors, but one thing they have found is that teenage girls are picking up the habit more.

I think once you find those triggers that entice teenagers, then you can help treat addiction.

Perhaps, but I certainly know that I felt like a "bad boy" when I started smoking cigarettes. I did it because I thought it was cool, and it made me feel like an adult. And the only reason I felt like an adult was because tobacco is regulated, and only adults are supposed to use it. If anyone could smoke at any age, would it still have appealed to me? Or would I just have written it off as a useless, stinky habit that stinky people do when they want to stink?

The answer isn't to remove all regulations either.

It should be controlled because it (cigarettes) has the potential to be a deadly substance as it leads to cancers and increased risk factors for things like heart attacks and strokes. I don't see as many teenagers smoking now, as I did 10 years ago. So here at least, something seems to be working. It is no longer deemed 'cool' or adult to smoke. Quite the contrary.

Well, I probably wouldn't, but that's not at all what we're talking about here. Decriminalization is not tantamount to handing some teenager a joint. If anything, it's probably taking a joint out of a kid's hand.

But make no mistake: if it came to him smoking it no matter what, and he could either get it from me, or some drug dealer who also has a pocketful of pink pills and white powder, you bet your ass he's getting his pot from me. The whole reason pot is a "gateway drug" is because the same people who sell it sell coke and pills and other hard drugs.

I am not disagreeing ith you.

I think if we want to ensure people's safety, the best way to go about it is to strike it at its source and that would be the dealers and the best way to do that is to decriminalise it. Remember, on that score, we agree.

My point is simply that it's a very real risk, but also a very small one. Red meat doubtlessly kills more people each year; should we regulate that, as well? I mean, don't get me wrong, if you want to regulate pot, I'm not going to fight you, but I'm not going to pretend that I agree that it's somehow necessary, or even that it's effective. Even controlling a substance in the way alcohol and tobacco are controlled only makes the substance more attractive to people who aren't supposed to be using it.

It needs to have some form of regulation. Even Denmark has that.

You mean like pill addicts, who doctor- and pharmacist-shop so they can get their fix above and beyond their script?

Regulation is just something lawmakers do so they can tax us more. It doesn't stop anyone from using or abusing. You want to regulate because you think it's a moral responsibility, but it's effects are startlingly similar to those of prohibition, in that it creates a criminal culture, and turns sick people into inmates.

There certainly are ways to actually do some good without regulation. Again, I point to Denmark, a country that has gotten short-term and long-term usage to decline across the board.

Yes, but they also had a system in place a few years ago where addicts could go to their doctors for a script and their drug addiction was treated as an illness which was controlled by taking their daily doses of the drugs they needed to function and it was safe, clean and controlled. And it worked, as you can see yourself with the decline of usage. The long term goal is always to wean people off the drugs, but they did it in a safe manner and it was treated as a disease. So it was regulated, very much so because it was deemed a moral responsibility to care for those who were addicted.

[Balerion]

And how many teenagers now pick up that same habit? In Australia, there has been a general drop, due to a fairly rabid campaign and regulations in place which makes it a crime to sell tobacco to minors, but one thing they have found is that teenage girls are picking up the habit more.

In America, high school smoking rates dropped considerably in the late-90s and early 2000s, but the rate of decline has leveled off. I'm sure certain things, such as tougher penalties for vendors who sell to minors, and increased educational campaigns helped, but even with the elimination of billboards and magazine ads, and long, long since the removal of tobacco commercials, something like 16 percent of high schoolers smoke.

This tells me that there are other factors at play. I mean, they run gross anti-smoking commercials all the time over here, so people are being shown graphic depictions of what cigarettes can do. To me, this says that there's still a "cool" factor that comes from the pseudorebellious nature of doing something illegal.

I think once you find those triggers that entice teenagers, then you can help treat addiction.

I agree. We just differ on what it is that entices them.

The answer isn't to remove all regulations either.

I certainly don't think it's the only answer, but I think it would a long way toward getting American kids off of cigarettes. Even if it took a little while, I think in the long run we'd see positive results.

It should be controlled because it (cigarettes) has the potential to be a deadly substance as it leads to cancers and increased risk factors for things like heart attacks and strokes. I don't see as many teenagers smoking now, as I did 10 years ago. So here at least, something seems to be working. It is no longer deemed 'cool' or adult to smoke. Quite the contrary.

The most recent and relevant article I found on the subject (from Australia) stated that teen smoking was on the rise. Here they only listed statistics for kids between 12-15 years old, and didn't give any percentages, but it seems to contradict what you're saying.

The educational push over there seems to be having a positive overall effect, but since underage smokers are the ones most likely to remain smokers, it's sort of self-defeating if that number is rising.

I am not disagreeing ith you.

I think if we want to ensure people's safety, the best way to go about it is to strike it at its source and that would be the dealers and the best way to do that is to decriminalise it. Remember, on that score, we agree.

Okay.

It needs to have some form of regulation. Even Denmark has that.

Yes, but Portugal doesn't, so far as I can tell. And Denmark really hasn't decriminalized anything, they're just not interested in enforcing their laws about weed shops.

Yes, but they also had a system in place a few years ago where addicts could go to their doctors for a script and their drug addiction was treated as an illness which was controlled by taking their daily doses of the drugs they needed to function and it was safe, clean and controlled. And it worked, as you can see yourself with the decline of usage. The long term goal is always to wean people off the drugs, but they did it in a safe manner and it was treated as a disease. So it was regulated, very much so because it was deemed a moral responsibility to care for those who were addicted.

Ah, but that isn't regulation. All of those measures were entirely optional to the addict, and there were no legal ramifications if they declined treatment. But many people do accept the treatment (I believe it's free, but don't quote me on that) and as a result, their rehabilitation programs actually work, whereas ours do not.

[Diode-Man]

I got to wondering how much the issue with pot really has to do with the crime rate in Holland. Certainly the drug policy there reflects a larger attitude towards the role of government in private lives. But is it all negative, I wondered. Does it boil down to measuring the degree of prohibition? I went off looking for something else that could refect Dutch positivity and something broader than the drug issue. I came across this. The writer is an American in Holland, speaking of the Dutch welfare contributions to the needy:



http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/03/ma...pagewanted=all

To me that last sentence epitomizes the attitude that might actually reduce crime. When a society reaches to the root causes of disturbances in the well-being of individuals, and seeks to offset them proactively, doesn't this have a deterrent or rehabilitative effect on potential criminals? If anything, it's an appeal to reason, something rare in the polemic of public policy, at least in my native USA.

Welfare is very costly to Dutch taxpayers who probably average about 50% higher taxes than the upper bracket in the US. Now go figure the cost of incarcerating 2 million Americans, and the insidious effect this has, to brutalize people who are already demonstrating disturbed behavior.

Perhaps the decline of crime in Holland is a windfall of their proactive attitude. Anyone can complain about cost. But who is willing to stand up and demand that human costs be better accounted for? Are the Dutch simply seeing return on their investment? Is their decline in crime just the consequence of modeling cost more broadly than countries like the US?

Maybe the big picture has been blurred for so long by the strident right wing that average Americans have completely lost their sense of center. How is the American experience not just a reflection of a persistent denial of that bit of advice that says "it is better to be penny-wise than pound-foolish"?

I agree with your statements, those Europeans you speak of seem to have great care for their people...

[Diode-Man]

Sometimes when one buys marijuana through illegal means it comes with fungicides and pesticides. What will the chemicals in fungicides and pesticides do to the brain when smoked alongside marijuana?

If marijuana is as unhealthy as cigarettes it's because its provided by people who aren't doing it for healthy reasons in the first place. They're doing it to make money outside the law.

On the other hand, if marijuana is grown professionally indoors it won't need fungicides and pesticides!

Additionally, marijuana could be taxed to provide more money for state operations. How much money is wasted on police investigations involving marijuana?

As I say: "Marijuana, at least it isn't crack!"

Let's look at drug lords and governments that practice prohibition of drugs. The governments that are anti-drug conduct raids that increase the price of the drugs by cutting down on the supply. The really smart/cautious/evil drug lords that don't get caught love to see their competition taken out by drug raids...

If illegal drugs were made legal the price would drop and drug addicts would stop robbing and plundering their neighbors just to get money to pay for their drugs, instead they would be able to cultivate their own supply without causing problems for other people. If drugs were legal, addiction would only hurt those doing the drugs...

Education on what drugs will do to a person is good, never take that away, but prohibition just doesn't help!