Downgrading marijuana
National Drug Control Minister Wayne Perinchief is backing the partial decriminalisation of marijuana. It's about time.
Mr. Perinchief is right that "the punitive effect of a marijuana conviction outweighs the crime". I don't agree that marijuana users are "victims" of the dealers, but by making it extremely difficult for those unlucky enough to get caught smoking a joint to study or work in the US, the current law can do serious long-term damage to their educational prospects and employability. That's not an appropriate punishment for what is in itself a victimless crime.
The proposed change should also allow the police and the courts to spend more time going after the dealers. That makes sense to me.
A poll that I ran last year suggested that most readers of this site were in favour of some relaxation of the law. I wonder whether Mr. Perinchief will be able to get the idea past the PLP's Central Committee, though?
Archives By Date
I agree with Minister Perinchief's position on this topic. Too many young people are being stigmatized by getting caught with a spliff. Possession of one 'joint' and their lives are ruined because they have a 'criminal' record and consequently cannot study in some overseas countries, cannot travel abroad etc. In my opinion, most people of this generation have experimented with marijuana, even if its only occasional. This experimentation has not harmed anyone else, and is arguably less harmful that the legal drug of alcohol.
I think a distinction obviously should be made between possession of marijuana for personal use, and possession in large quantities presumably for distribution.
With regard to the PLP Central Committee, I don't think they are as 'stuck in the mud' as some might think.
At the very least, the dialogue has begun and it will be very interesting to see how things develop.
Posted by ken on 17.04.06 at 13:54
I agree with this policy.
The punishment needs to be proportionate to the crime, and a defacto travel ban to the United States is for anybody resident in Bermuda a huge price to pay.
For those that are distributing drugs I have, however, far less sympathy.
Nor do I have much sympathy for those that import it into Bermuda...even for personal use, as it would take a very deliberate and conscious act to carry an illegal drug through Customs.
Posted by NoVote on 17.04.06 at 14:03
No Vote, I completely agree with you. Even though I myself take a hard stance against drugs, even I can conceed that restricting one's future for something stupid they did as a teenager or even a young adult is not helpful. However anyone who imports these drugs, or caught selling them should have the book thrown at them. They are the scum of society after all...
I'd prefer a tierd system.
1st offence, rehab
2nd offence, rehab + Fine
3rd offence, rehab + larger fine
4th offence, rehab + 1 month in jail (Hey we gave them their chances, they are obviously not learning and rehab isn't helping either).
Posted by Full Fullish on 17.04.06 at 14:08
"However anyone who imports these drugs, or caught selling them should have the book thrown at them. They are the scum of society after all..."
And how do you feel about alcohol? Is that OK because it's legal?
Posted by JSM on 17.04.06 at 14:19
It's about time. Personally, I think they should legalize the use of MJ, and come down HARD on the importation and use of all other hard drugs. Marijuana in a controlled state is no worse (probably better), than alcohol.
Posted by Linda on 17.04.06 at 15:08
While I agree that your sentencing guidlines are way to hard on small/personal users where do you draw the line? What about the person caught in a school zone or higher penalty zone?
Linda,
What do refer to as a controlled state? Allow it in bars or other areas where maybe alcohol is served? How about backyard parties where young children are so they can see it being used properly? Once you open that door you will never close it again.
Marijuana should NEVER be legal but the penalties should vary depending on the circumstance.
Posted by charles on 17.04.06 at 15:24
I doubt they will legalize it...I think that will be seen as supporting it. Decriminalizing it still gives the impression that its not a good thing, and still gives the police the ability to prosecute those that are importing it. In most cases these importers are bringing in marijuana along with the hard drugs.
Posted by ken on 17.04.06 at 15:28
"Marijuana should NEVER be legal "
Why? Is it because you succomed to the mistruthes and propaganda spewed regarding marijuana?
Do a little research, educate yourself.
Posted by smith on 17.04.06 at 15:44
It was only a matter of time before this Government came to understand why they need to manage the "rules" about marijuana use differently than some of the other illicit drugs. I agree entirely that the laws need to be reviewed. The legal structure needs to reflect the reality of continued marijuana use in our culture. However, I would suggest caution and pragmatism in moving forwards. there are a number of issues that need to be "fleshed" out:
1. Legalising marijuana has disaster written all over it. The two legal drugs of choice, namely alcohol and nicotine, wreak havoc on the balance and well-being of our society!
2. Comparing alcohol to marijuana serves no purpose whatsoever. They are fundamentally different and therefore need to be regarded differently.
3. Substance use, abuse and dependence are different and need to be understood in terms of their nature and extent. A person who is chemically dependent has a disease that is centered in the brain and stems from a host of biological, psychological and social variables. Our leaders and decision makers need to be clear on the difference between use, abuse and dependence.
4. Where is the data? How much marijuana comes into Bermuda? From where? Who uses it? How much money is made from it and where does that money end up? How can our decision makers amend "rules" without a clear picture of the exact nature and extent of the problem? Or do they know something we don't know?
5. Question ~ how do people feel about their childrens' teacher smoking pot? How about the bus driver or airline pilot? What about your 16 year old daughter's 19 year old boyfriend?
I am very open to this issue being put on the table. People who smoke marijuana run tremendous risks as it has potentially harmful biological, psychological and social side effects, is addictive and people do become dependent on it. Once a person is chemically dependent there is no going back ~ chemically dependent people literally don't know what "recreational use" is. I say bring on the information and let's hear what the so-called experts in the MNDC have to say! In the mean time ~ lets bring the law into the reality of the world we are living in.
Posted by Backs on 17.04.06 at 15:56
" People who smoke marijuana run tremendous risks as it has potentially harmful biological, psychological and social side effects, is addictive and people do become dependent on it."
Please, check your facts...you sound like a US propaganda machine.
Perhaps you were thinking of that legal drug, alcohol, which is physically addictive, unlike marijuana.
Posted by smith on 17.04.06 at 16:03
What mistruthes are you refering too? Which propaganda would you dispel if you could? Please enlighten me where I could have gone wrong with my statements above!
Posted by charles on 17.04.06 at 16:03
WHy should it never be legal?
Posted by smith on 17.04.06 at 16:05
ps...to those out there who claim marijuana is harmless. Tell that to the parents of the kids who have had psychotic episodes and ended up in the hospital or failed out of school because they couldn't get to class or "just want to take a year off and finfd myself". Or try talking to the 8 year old whose father has chosen smoking herb over being a part of the family. Interview recovering addicts and alcoholics and hear what they have to say about "harmless". Come with me to visit with people who have lost track of their rational-emotive processes as a result of long term marijuana use and notice how they wouldn't know an intimate relationship with anything except their little green plant "that God gave them" ~ scary and real!
Posted by Backs on 17.04.06 at 16:07
When they are enforcing stricter smoking laws why would they want to take a step backwards and allow people to smoke a joint without fear of any real punishment? 'Decriminalizing' marijuana will only help promote people to smoke it...
On the bright side, maybe our ministers will have their drug tests now...you cant fail for something thats not illegal.
Posted by Joe on 17.04.06 at 16:09
I can understand the desire for decriminalizing Marijuana to help protect the future of young people who might slip up. I do have a problem with putting more money into the pockets of the dealers though. Hopefully there is a way to find a balance.
Posted by SmokingGun on 17.04.06 at 16:10
Backs, excellent post!
JSM - Lets compare apples and apples please. One of the things that really annoys me about people that are for legalising weed is the ridiculous arguments put forward. "Well Alcohol is a drug", "What about overeating, or eating bad food". One of the main differences is that there are a lot of unknowns about THC and the actual effects it has on the brain, etc. There are more cases and studies showing the detriments of smoking week that there are for it. Is it propaganda? I don't know, but what do the people in these studies have to gain from telling everyone that smoking weed is bad. I find it difficult to believe that there is some big anti-weed conspiracy out there.....besides isn't paranoia one of the side affects shown, kinda tells you something there.
Just a quick search finds hundreds if not thousands of issues caused by this "harmless drug". A quick search reveals many articles about anything positive with it, however upon comparison, the bad grossly outweighs the good. Some of it is speculation, some not. I'm with Backs on this one, lets get the facts on the table about this. Just discuss weed and only weed. Arguments bringing in examples of a completely different nature loose all credibility in my books.
I think it's a slippery slope we face, caution is defiantly called for here.
Posted by Full Fullish on 17.04.06 at 16:13
Smith
Why are you answering my questions with a question. Again what myth would you dispel,what untruths about it's use would you defend?
Posted by charles on 17.04.06 at 16:14
Smith I suggest you start with "A Primer of Drug Action", Robert M. Julien, MD, PhD...if there are any more questions in terms of the biological, psychological and social impact of THC get back to me and I will happily point you to the latest in Treatment and Intervention of marijuana abuse and marijuana dependence (as per the "Diagnostical and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition). Addiction is all about "smoke and mirrors" my friend...recovery is about transparency and that is where treatment has to live...we don't deal in myth, that is where our clients are coming from!
Posted by Backs on 17.04.06 at 16:20
Just a quick search online has found numerous sites refrencing many different studies that have found marijuana use to degreade short term memory, concentration, judgement, and co-ordination with complex tasks (ie. DRIVING!). When mixed with alcohol, drivers were at a much higher risk of having crashes. By itself, marijuana use still caused many accidents...seems like a good idea to me to allow the already brain-dead drivers in bermuda another excuse as to why they killed that innocent person.
Posted by DownDeRoad on 17.04.06 at 16:22
"Once a person is chemically dependent there is no going back..."
We are still talking about Marijuana here right?
Seriously though Backs, good post! I am in agreement with at least more than 50% of it, but any modern research I have seen has found that chemical (physical) marijuana dependancy is either rare or non-existent, and certainly not permanent in the way we view heroine or alcohol dependency.
Posted by camo on 17.04.06 at 16:30
"One of the main differences is that there are a lot of unknowns about THC and the actual effects it has on the brain, etc"
Again, your opinion, please attempt to educate yourselves.
Start here: http://www.cannasat.com/home/
"Why are you answering my questions with a question"
I didn't, I had asked you a question, which you ignored.
Posted by smith on 17.04.06 at 16:30
We should realize that the 'illegality' of marijuana right now does nothing to deter those that want to smoke from smoking. I say that to say that some are concerned about people driving down the road high on weed. I say that if they want to be high, they will be...legal or illegal. The more important purpose is that there are many in bermuda that have had the productivity of their lives stunted due to an indiscretion of their youth. These youth may deserve at least another chance to ensure they don't end up in the same predicament. A tiered approach as suggested by Full Fullish works for me.
Posted by ken on 17.04.06 at 16:33
"Smith I suggest you start with "A Primer of Drug Action", Robert M. Julien, MD, PhD"
Backs, I'd suggest you not limit your research to one biased writer.
Posted by smith on 17.04.06 at 16:33
For clarity I am defining Dependency in accordance with the aforementioned DSM-IV-TR. Physical dependence is only one feature in the criteria. There is a notable withdawal phenomenon with THC that is not dissimilar to cocaine and methamphetamine.
Posted by Backs on 17.04.06 at 16:34
Point me to your sources Smith...point me to anything that says "harmless".
Posted by Backs on 17.04.06 at 16:37
thank you JMS ~ that was useful...careful what you pray for :)
Posted by Backs on 17.04.06 at 16:38
Ken,
I interpreted those comments to mean that alot of people who don't currently smoke might be inclined to do so if it was legal.
Smith,
Why do you say that writer was biased?
Backs raises a good point of needing to understand a problem before you can address it. It's a supply and demand issue, reducing barriers to demand (i.e. legality) is going to have an effect, probably negative, on drug use overal. No shortages of test subjects 'round here.
Posted by silencedogood on 17.04.06 at 16:42
Camo - "Seriously though Backs, good post! I am in agreement with at least more than 50% of it, but any modern research I have seen has found that chemical (physical) marijuana dependancy is either rare or non-existent, and certainly not permanent in the way we view heroine or alcohol dependency."
They have found that the addiction to weed is more psychological and is also very common. Physical or psychological, you're hooked and your smoking it.
Posted by Full Fullish on 17.04.06 at 16:44
Smith - I have been attempting to, but where does it say they have mapped out the aspects of THC and "KNOW" how it effects the brain both short and long term exposure,if any effect at all?
Show me anywhere that says that please.
Posted by Full Fullish on 17.04.06 at 16:48
Personally I do not think that anyone that has no experience with the subject really cannot pass judgement by reading articles and viewing TV commercials. Statistics, I feel, should be presented displaying the detrimental effects of both marijuana and alcohol . I can almost just about guarantee that you will find that the latter has caused more deaths, health complications, contibuted greatly to the destruction of families, caused financial misery for individuals and overall has brought about greater adverse affects to society as a whole. Then there is the issue of cigarettes. How many deaths do these cancer sticks cause on a daily basis? Can anyone honestly count that high? But because they are deemed legal by the "greater powers" the destructive side effects of these products are accepted to be reasonable. To say that alcohol is not a drug ic completely ridiculous. People will rob and steal (just as others do for harder drugs)just for another shot of alcohol. Just read the RG and you will see how many individuals are caught trying to shoplift a bottle or two from Marketplace (or any other store) every week. Go to drug rehab centres, and see how many people are there for marijuana addiction. Alcohol has their own rehab club, the AA. I have never heard of an MA. Have you?
Posted by Double Standards on 17.04.06 at 16:48
Smiths - "Backs, I'd suggest you not limit your research to one biased writer."
Christ you're one to talk, Backs sends you quite a few references and you dismiss them as biased, yet you point me to your link which is from a pharmaceutical company intent on selling this. Um who's biased here?
Posted by Full Fullish on 17.04.06 at 16:50
Thank you for e-mail link Smith. I applaud medical research and in no way intend to interfere with on-going medical evolution. I must say though I am wary of the pharmaceutical industry and its capacity to make "boat loads of cash"! Notwithstanding that sites medical focus, I am talking about "non-medical" THC use. I would argue that someone who has suffered major burns should be allowed to use morphine as part of their rehabiltation but not year round year after year...lets get the focus here. I am discussing "joe public" smoking marijuana and the associated realities of this practice in our society in particular regard to the prevalence of people becoming chemically dependent and the negative impact this exacts on each of us.
Posted by Backs on 17.04.06 at 16:51
Double Standards - "Alcohol has their own rehab club, the AA. I have never heard of an MA. Have you? "
You saying there aren't any drug rehabs on the Island then? May be not specifically for weed, but it is covered.
Re Cigarette smoking, are they not making cracking down on it, is it not becoming illegal to smoke by the end of this month? I'll bet within the next 20 years it will also be a banned substance. Yeah a long time, but it's being worked towards.
Oh and one doesn't need to try weed in order to be hurt by it. Lots of people on the sidelines get hurt by it, you saying they don't have a voice in this?
Posted by Full Fullish on 17.04.06 at 16:58
Double Standards - there are 47 Twelve Step Groups now in North America including Cocaine Anonymous and Marijuana Anonymous
http://www.marijuana-anonymous.org/
Your point about "legal drugs" is well taken and lends itself to the question ~ How should we change the way we manage chemical use in our society in light of the reality of what we know to be true about how they effect us biologically, socially and psychologically? I think this is progressive...
Posted by Backs on 17.04.06 at 16:58
Backs,
The physical withdrawl symptoms are uncommon, short-term and extremely mild in comparison to just all other common drugs including caffiene. Comparing marijuana to cocaine and speed in this way is misleading at best.
Would it be possible for you to post the definition of chemical dependency as written in your manual? Being that "there is no going back", I for one really want to know about it.
Posted by camo on 17.04.06 at 17:00
I predict this will turn in to one of those 200+ post threads, chock full of anecdotes and studies on both sides of the fence. Allow me to throw in my two cents while this post is still nearly on target...
I find it highly (pardon the pun) unlikely that the PLP will back Mr. Perenchief on this one. While the Government's reluctance to legally require drug testing of MPs suggests there might be personal support, the party is too in hock to the moral Christian majority of this island to try anything so brave (by analogy, consider the unwillingness to even debate equal rights for homosexuals, despite the supposed sexual preferences of some Government MPs). DISCLAIMER: I'm not suggesting the UBP would be any braver, but they aren't the Government.
If the aim at the end of the day is to make punishments less draconian, another alternative to decriminalisation is simply to stop enforcing the current law. This isn't as far-fetched as it may at first sound - it is much easier to change a law de facto than de jure, and by doing so you avoid the undesirable stigma of seeming to approve of marijuana use, while also reserving the option to change course if this turns out to be a really bad idea. For case in point, consider laws against non-procreative sex in the states - every now and then you hear about some arcane Georgian statute forbidding fellacio or the like, not because the state is still stuck in the 18th century (open to debate, I know) but because it was easier to simply stop enforcing the ban.
Police officers should be told to give people caught with a little twist a severe warning (and confiscation of their drugs) instead of arresting them. It's both the most effective way of stemming the unjustified flood of non-violent, victimless arrests, as well as the most likely to be achieved.
Posted by TJL on 17.04.06 at 17:04
It's not really convincing to argue legal drugs cause more harm than illegal drugs by citing absolute numbers. Of course legal drugs will look worse--they are legal and thus have far more users!
Marijuana may or may not be close to cigarettes in relative harm, but no one can say that it doesn't have a truck-load of chemicals in it.
Legalize it and once its smokers equal those for tobacco, then you can compare cancer rates.
Posted by silencedogood on 17.04.06 at 17:09
DSM-IV-TR - Chemical Dependence
Definition: a maladaptive pattern of substance use leading to clinically significant impairment or distress as may be manifested by 3 or more of the following:
1.Tolerance
2.Withdrawal
3.Taken in larger amounts or over a longer period than was intended
4.Persistent desire or unsuccessful efforts to cut down or control use
5.Great deal of time spent thinking about, obtaining and recovering from
6.Important social and occupational activities reduced or given up
7.Use continues in spite of knowledge of having a persistent physical or psychological problem that is likely caused by use.
Posted by Backs on 17.04.06 at 17:10
Backs
I would point out that medical marijuana has potential biological and psychological benefits as well.
It has been used with positive effect in the treatment of:
The Severe Nausea and Vomiting of Cancer Chemotherapy, Glaucoma, Epilepsy, Multiple Sclerosis, The Spasm and Pain of Paraplegia and Quadriplegia, AIDS, Chronic Pain, Migraine, Rheumatic Diseases (Osteoarthritis and Ankylosing Spondylitis), Premenstrual Syndrome, Menstrual Cramps, Labor Pains,
Ulcerative Colitis, Crohn's Disease, Phantom Limb Pain, and Depression.
I agree with Ken "Decriminalizing it still gives the impression that its not a good thing, and still gives the police the ability to prosecute those that are importing it."
Posted by anon on 17.04.06 at 17:13
"Of course legal drugs will look worse--they are legal and thus have far more users!" - silencedogood.
Thanks. I'm getting nervous about the call for putting a ban on selling cold beer. Sometimes people just need to remember such obvious factors. There are far more responsible drinkers than there are abusers yet the righteous always have to have it their way.
Posted by SmokingGun on 17.04.06 at 17:16
I don't agree with this proposed policy. As for following the UK's stance on this, one needs to see that it has been seen by many to have been a mistake. Either something is legal or illegal. You can't have this fuzzy area in the middle. An ambiguous message is sent out that marijuana is sort of okay, and those that stayed away from it out of fear of being arrested before will now buy it. Remember that money from marijuana sales funds organized crime, as well as terrorism. As someone who is close to long-term marijuana users, I know first-hand that it causes significant mental health problems.
Posted by NealR on 17.04.06 at 17:19
Full Fullish,
"They have found that the addiction to weed is more psychological and is also very common."
So? Nobody's disputing that.
"Physical or psychological, you're hooked and your smoking it."
Are you suggesting that these types of dependence have the same kind of effect on the user and those around them? They do not, not even close.
Posted by camo on 17.04.06 at 17:20
NealR,
If marijuana is decriminalised it would still be illegal ... there would just be a reduction in the penalty for simple possession without the intent to supply. It is not creating a fuzzy area in the middle it would still be illegal. I believe the idea here is to make the punishment more commensurate with the crime.
Posted by anon on 17.04.06 at 17:27
Backs,
Marijuana use rarely leads to "clinically significant impairment or distress". Having said that, marijuana does result in symptoms 1 and 3 in most users and 2 in some. 2,4,5,6&7 are also symptoms of Psychological Dependance. Having 3 of these symptoms does not necessarily indicate chemical dependance, which is why the definition uses the term "may be mainifested by".
The research shows it. Chemical dependance happens with a small minority of marijuana users and it is not a long-term or severe condition.
Posted by camo on 17.04.06 at 17:44
Sorry, accidentally deleted the thank you. Thank you for posting that definition for us Backs!
Posted by camo on 17.04.06 at 17:46
I'm sure all of us want drug use reduced rather than leap through semantic hoops to try and justify it. I always thought the best way to encourage drug avoidance was to spend time with those who spend their free time off their cracker on draw.
With the possible exception of bloggers, dope users are the most tedious, self obsessed participants in society, although an hour spent in their company does unlock the perplexing popularity of ragga amongst white Trustafarians called Tarquin - anything more demanding musically would be incomprehensible in their enfeebled state...
Posted by trebliso on 17.04.06 at 18:33
"dope users are the most tedious, self obsessed participants in society,"
Funny, they also run large corporations, have engineering degrees, develop high technology...and the list goes on.
I find those, who have never partaken, to be rather tedious in their insistance on pushing what they think is 'right' onto others.
Posted by smith on 17.04.06 at 18:37
At the end of the day I am hoping that our law makers take a closer look at the way people use the various chemicals of abuse and begin to develop processes that help people who need help earlier and more effectively. The current laws around marijuana use appear to exascerbate the problem and certainly alleviate nothing. The key to all of this is good clinical assessment. Once I have a clear picture of the exact nature and extent of the problem then I can begin to participate in the solution. Case by case individuals will present with a host of variables along a series of related contniuums ranging from mild to severe. I do believe there are people who can smoke marijuana their entire lives and lead a relatively fulfilling and harmonious path. I am also aware that marijuana use can lead to dire and tragic results in an instant or progressively over time. The challenge is creating an environment where these types of risks can be minimized and I think we do not do a good job of this across the chemicals of abuse board. Reason? Because we don't have decision makers and leaders taking the time to make well informed decisions about how to manage the truth and reality of things like marijuana use, marijuana abuse and marijuana dependence. I would imagine cigarette smoking will be a thing of the past for most people within the next 20 years....my guess is the others will follow suit. I personally have concerns for anyone who needs to rely on external chemicals to cope with anything...surely that is just a sign of "not coping very well"!? I concede that to be true in my case sometimes...not coping very well and unable to cope with admitting it!
Posted by Backs on 17.04.06 at 19:25
I may have missed this somewhere - so apologies if I have...but...
There is some talk of having one's future blighted in particular with regards to the USA, if one has a criminal record for drug use.
Are we saying that we either legalise it or not, because if we do not legalise it, then whether the court punishment is (say) rehab or similar, then presumably it will carry a criminal record.
Posted by Martin on 17.04.06 at 19:32
obviously, incarceration for sucking on a paper tube or even carrying a few scraps of leaves is wildly excessive. it's illogical, unnecessary and ineffective.
however, the argument for the decriminalisation of marijuana is scuttled when it's taken beyond that simple crux. when puffitypuff pundits try and claim weed is some holistic touchstone that can be used to save lives, improve said lives, and depending on your industriousness, house and clothe livers of said lives, it smacks of wicked overcompensation.
be real. really. the vast majority of the time, it's used as a purely recreational thing. which is fine, shoot, for most that have partaken at some point, it's completely understandable. generally, being high is fun. and of course, marijuana has other, more noble/relevant functions, just like controlled alcohol consumption has been proven to be marvelous for helping pre-empt heart disease.
however, at the root of it, as with liquor, most people use weed like a toy. this is obvious. with that said, if a toy forces you to become this passionate about justifying your need to play with it whenever the urge strikes, it probably means you play too much.
beyond that, inhaling smoke is bad for you. damages the lungs, like, it burns 'em. causes mild breathing problems at best, at worst, emphysema and other pulmonary issues.
oh, and of course i'm aware that there are other ways to use weed. i went to college in alberta, for god's sake. ;). water pipes, brownies, tea, etc. but those sort of...professional, more health/safety conciousness users are in the minority. most folk wanna crack a philly, turn up the ELP and watch the world crawl away. which is fine. but accept that's why most people use the stuff, and in turn, accept why it's kinda hard to take calls for absolute legalisation because of how marijuana squeezings can shrink cataracts in a quarter of eskimo divorcees by 30 percent terribly seriously.
deuces.
Posted by Thaao Dill on 17.04.06 at 19:47