Jump to content
  • Sign Up

SFU professor tackles pot policy 'stalemate'


Recommended Posts

Benedikt Fischer, a health sciences professor at Simon Fraser University, has just co-authored a new book evaluating current marijuana prohibition systems -- and considering alternatives that might actually work.

 

 

Last February, Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced his government's new anti-drug strategy. It amounted to a number of stricter penalties, including mandatory jail sentences for conducting large-scale grow-ops and an increase in maximum prison terms from seven to 14 years.

 

 

The message was a loud and clear reinforcement of the status-quo: Prohibition works.

 

 

Fischer disagrees.

 

 

"We have to be very aware of the limitations of policy," he said. "There's no reason to assume more regulatory framework has significant benefits. User rates have typically not gone up in countries that have liberalized their regimes."

 

A 2007 United Nations drug report suggests that 6.1 per cent of people aged 15-64 in the Netherlands, which has some of the most liberal drug policies in the world, smoked marijuana in the previous year.

 

By contrast, the report found that 16.8 of Canadians in the same demographic had smoked pot in 2006.

 

"Use is driven by other considerations," Fischer added. "When people make the decision to smoke a joint they do not think about the current systems of control. They are driven more by dynamics of subculture and fashion than by policy."

 

Fischer's book Cannabis Policy: Moving beyond stalemate, published last Thursday by the Oxford University Press, provides a comprehensive, up-to-date summary of the latest health and psychological research about marijuana, and outlines policy alternatives to prohibition.

 

 

One such alternative is for marijuana use to be penalized when it has the most potential to cause harm to the user or others around them, as is the case with drinking alcohol or smoking cigarettes.

 

 

"The case we're making is that with any psychoactive substance there are benefits and harms - and the harms you can target pretty specifically through specific interventions."

 

 

"It's not an innocuous drug. There are dangers. Smoking a joint and then getting into a car, for instance, is a bluntly stupid idea. So you make driving and smoking illegal."

 

Beyond prohibition being ineffective, the book argues it may be impossible. The ease of marijuana cultivation, the ability to grow it indoors or underground, would make it extremely difficult to abolish.

 

And between making billions of dollars for drug lords, costing hundreds of millions in police work and incarcerations and spurring battles between health authorities and governments over the medicinal benefits of marijuana for AIDS and chemotherapy patients, Fischer believes prohibition is doing more harm than good.

 

 

"We want the policy that governs cannabis use to be driven by public health principals, and that's certainly not the case. In fact, the policy we have is one that does a lot of harm to public health objectives."

 

 

The book is available at the Oxford University Press website and Amazon.ca.

 

Date: 24 January 2010

Source: TV British Columbia

http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/C...ishColumbiaHome

Link to comment
Share on other sites

;)

"Use is driven by other considerations," Fischer added. "When people make the decision to smoke a joint they do not think about the current systems of control. They are driven more by dynamics of subculture and fashion than by policy."

True , And even more than the ol' Dynamics of Subculture ... People are driven by their own free will and just as oftenly [sic] , out of necessity. :yahoo:

 

One such alternative is for marijuana use to be penalized when it has the most potential to cause harm to the user or others around them, as is the case with drinking alcohol or smoking cigarettes.

 

"The case we're making is that with any psychoactive substance there are benefits and harms - and the harms you can target pretty specifically through specific interventions."

 

"It's not an innocuous drug. There are dangers. Smoking a joint and then getting into a car, for instance, is a bluntly stupid idea. So you make driving and smoking illegal."

Nice pun , I would still dispute that any supposed "dangers" are minimal and when someone is "too stoned" to drive ... they will more than not ... realize it and won't drive , whereas Alcohol will do the opposite and give a sense of false confidence and reckless abandon. :)

But I agree though. Treat it like alcohol , things like RDT's would need to be based on suspicion foremost and configured to be fair considered the amount of time the Cannabinoids stay in the system. There would have to be many changes to the laws in certain areas ... but basically , DOn't Toke in undesignated public areas , Don't Drive ... DOn't supply to minors and don't disrupt the workplace etc ... It's actually very easy to fathom is it not? :P

The Money and time saved could well treat "specific" problems as they arise. Rather than Chasing an apparition.

"We want the policy that governs cannabis use to be driven by public health principals, and that's certainly not the case. In fact, the policy we have is one that does a lot of harm to public health objectives."

Here Hear! ... :toke:

 

To even consider doubling the Mandatory Minimum Sentencing! for even a large grow-op (to 14yrs wtf?) ... is beyond Ludicrous ... there's Murderers that get out quicker than that. If the Laws would change then a "Large Scale Grow-Op" would become ... a "Hobby Farm". Problem Solved. Wowzers! :)

 

Much more to say , but all I got now is a ...

Cheerz Grace , As always ... thanx for the article :sick Great Work.

It helped me thunk stuff ;) ... excellente.

heheheh

And between making billions of dollars for drug lords, costing hundreds of millions in police work and incarcerations and spurring battles between health authorities and governments over the medicinal benefits of marijuana for AIDS and chemotherapy patients, Fischer believes prohibition is doing more harm than good.

Not to mention heaps of rantings by stoned advocate forum goers ... Without prohibition , I'm sure we'd all have funnier stuff to talk about otherwize ;) tee-hee

 

Cheerz All ... and have Fun ;)

 

Budman ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only thing that would impact the supply of Cannabis is execution.

If anybody would think that's a good idea, firstly those people should

go and fck themselves, secondly what then? what has Australia become?

if we decide that it's worth killing people over some natural herb

in essence the prohibition is the pinnacle of the downfall of society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using the community in any way you agree to our Terms of Use and We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.