[quote]Legalization will change many things about our society on many different levels, and the pros outweigh the cons. [/quote] [url=http://psychnews.psychiatryonline.org/newsarticle.aspx?articleid=1864116]The psychiatrists don't agree with you.[/url]

Psychiatrists are not the end all for societal change. And dude, chill man, this is the third reply to my post.

And yeah, they kinda are the end all of societal change (at least for drugs), the Dutch psychiatrists are getting rid of the coffee shops in the Netherlands, the British psychiatrists prevented the UK government from regulating weed, and they have enough power that governments are giving them 100s of thousands of dollars (except the French, the government gave the doctors 15 millions euros ) for "education programs", which in a nutshell, attach stigma to the smoking of weed. Doctors have a lot of power, and they should have that power....since they carry the burden of public health on their shoulders. The Canadian psychiatrists intercepted a bill in 2005 (right when the research on weed and psychosis was getting out) that would have further decriminalized weed. The Australian psychiatrists prevented a legalization bill from coming into place, Canadian doctors now have put extreme restrictions on Canada's medical marijuana program, the American psychiatrists are planning to put restrictions on American states that have medical marijuana programs, the UK doctors just plain got rid of their medical marijuana program (because 98 percent of "patients' have "unspecified pain"), etc. And before you pull the "look at all the damage alcohol and tobacco does', those companies are too strong, and even then, millions of dollars was spent on public health education programs to educate the public on the harms of alcohol and tobacco.

Then clearly they arent the end all for societal change, by your own words, they cant sway society as much as people and large companies. I understand that psychologists and their work is important, but obviously they arent the authority on it all, there are many angles to look at, and i think you have an obvious bias towards taking their words, ideas and musings as fact.

Actually there are education programs they aim, at kids and their families (especially young kids) and there's an entire field called drug prevention science, where scientists and doctors research ways to efficiently look at how to prevent people from using drugs.....and it works. One reason why American doctors (until recently) didn't accept the Europeans' belief that weed can contribute to the onset of psychosis was that the War on Drugs stigmatized weed to the point where (in 1986) 90% of teenager viewed marijuana as harmful and they didn't smoke it. So in other words the future adults are going to view at as dangerous....hence society will be changed because, if it is successful, arguing that weed is not dangerous will be probably be (to the people who went through the education programs) is going to be viewed as stupid as arguing that tobacco is not dangerous. In Europe it was the opposite (no war on drugs), and the result of that was, by 2002, it was estimated that 25000 British teenagers had their lives ruined by weed, and (worldwide) 20 percent of the schizophrenia cases would have been prevented. So now, they stigmatize weed to children, and children listen and view it as dangerous. This is why, in 1961, people used to weed tobacco as "safer than alcohol, medicinal, etc." and now people view it as a dangerous drug. Even though it's still legal, that wasn't the plan....because tobacco industry made enough money to make lobby groups for its safety. To do that with weed is stupid, especially since, (go figure), the millions of people killed by the alcohol and tobacco companies (big surprise) are treated by medical doctors....hence why I think doctors are the authority on this. And you can call it bias, but its no bias that weed can contribute to psychosis, that it can damage adolescent IQ, cognitive performance, motivation,etc and recently they found that weed has 50-70 percent more carcinogens than tobacco smoke. But of course, the cancer research on it has just started, and it's not conclusive yet. It is not bias that (from statistical studies), that weed has contributed to hundreds of thousands of people who would not have otherwise ill, that they are a burden on the medical system, that they cost money, that medical research is going to be obstructed because of this, that Philip Morris (a big tobacco company that killed millions of people) has been preparing for legal marijuana since the 1970s (to kill millions of more people and reap millions). Psychiatrists (not psychologists) are the authority on this, because they will be dealing with all the backlash from legalization efforts, and this will turn attention away from the 1/4 of the population that already is mentally ill.....and the fact that (already) it's a dangerously understaffed profession and 50 percent of the patients with schizophrenia,, according to the WHO, are not receiving adequate attention......and how all the money going into treating people who suffered bad reactions from weed is going to take all that money from research....and the fact that a lot of medical fields are going to take a hit because the millions of dollars that could be towards advancing science and medicine is going to be going into people who are experiencing negative effects from cannabis, or whose cannabis use contributed to schizophrenia or other psychotic illnesses. As a NICET engineer, who does zero work with patients, who works 9-5 designing sprinklers, you aren't the authority on this, the actual legitimate authorities are the doctors....and they're pretty decided the cons of legalization are not worth the pros. Also,you lost all your credibility as someone inclined to say he likes science, because the psychiatrist' "words ideas and musings" is actually peer review scientific evidence; hence: "There is no current scientific evidence that marijuana is in any way beneficial for the treatment of any psychiatric disorder. In contrast, current [b]evidence[/b] supports, at minimum, a strong association of cannabis use with the onset of psychiatric disorders. Adolescents are particularly vulnerable to harm, given the effects of cannabis on neurological development." Since the Europeans pushed their governments to tighten weed laws, and give them money towards education programs (therefore stigmatized cannabis) and the fact now that the NIH (National Institute of Health, America's center of medical research where all the $$$ is at) has openly stated they're going stigmatize it, and set up public health monitoring programs.....which the Dutch and British did since the 1970s....which has led to the current state they are in : end of regulation of weed in the Netherlands, British doctors preventing the government from legalizing it, etc. All I can say is enjoy it while you can, already, the burden on the medical system (because these kids with schizophrenia, who wouldn't be there had they smoked weed) are costing the medical system millions of dollars, and doctors,since the burden of public health is on their shoulders, logically should be the people who decide if this should be a legal substance or not.

Now if you spent as much time researching the harmful effects of alcohol, and hormones given to the food we eat everyday. You bring up Canada yet society here is swinging to the left. Within 5 years pot will be legal, we demand it. Everyone at my age smokes a joint after work or whenever. And everyone I know younger does it once in a while. Your psychiatrists will not out lobby the majority of canadians and conservatives are going to decriminlize it again because they know this.

Ah but doctors can't do anything about alcohol....because lobby groups and lawyers prevent doctors from doing anything about it. Finland announced cigarettes are going to be illegal, the tobacco companies are working on getting their legal teams on it. The Dutch doctor over ruled the government, and the government listened, I think they have power. I couldn't care whether it's legal or not.....but I think the doctors have good reason to keep it illegal, if people don't accept the potential harms of cannabis smoking, especially in young adulthood. And just to tell you, Trudeau openly announced he intends to control the THC content.....so no crazy strains that make you really high, unfortunately.

Which is fine THC doesnt need to be high. Again its only a matter of time before Canada makes revenue off of it. The other fact you forgot to mention. Organised crime thrives off of majiuana sales in Canada. HELLS ANGELS, mafia, ms-13 and other gangs will lose a major chunck of their profits if pot is sold in lcbo like stores.

Ah but then Big Marijuana, white collar criminals like tobacco and alcohol industries, will force it down children's throats, which Big Tobacco did throughout most of the 20th century, and caused the deaths of millions. If it makes you feel better, some doctors say, they won't object to regulation of cannabis, like they did in the Netherlands, if extreme restrictions are put in place like no advertising to children, can't advertise product period, and make sure the weed shops introduce something like a weed pass, to make sure no 16 year old kid with a fake ID gets his hand on weed, and so only adults can buy it.....if Trudeau wins that is. I don't care about legal weed or not, but personally, I don't like Trudeau (not for legal weed) but for the fact that for his 5 years as MP, he's done nothing, has little experience, doesn't know much about anything and not a good person to lead Canada. Just my opinion on him though. Funny I read an article where it said that even though a lot of Canadians were backing Trudeau for weed legalization, they don't want him elected because, overall, they don't think he lead the nation very well. I wish Jack Layton were still around.....he could lead this country better than Harper or Trudeau, in my opinion. His wife is running for Toronto mayor though, I hope she beats Rob Ford.

Yeah...doctors just don't want it illegal, they're using public health education programs to curb marijuana use.....which means that someone with a psychotic disorder shares his opinions towards a crowd of middle or high school students, tells them marijuana is not safe, and that "if you smoke it everyday you are increasing your risk factor for schizophrenia by a factor of 5 or 6" and how his life sucks because of his illness and they should not smoke weed......and it ends up working somehow; hence why countries in Europe that use this technique are noticing a decline in weed users. Or in other words they're scaring the crap out of kids and telling them weed is going to wreck their lives.....potentially. I'm not sure what my opinion on this tactic is.....what's yours? Someone called it brainwashing, I think maybe to a certain extent that's true.

The best way to get to kids is to tell the unbiased truth.

Ah but doctors believe that marijuana abuse is detrimental to the developed teenage mind, and can contribute to the onset of schizophrenia as the unbiased truth, hence their anti legalization approach. That's how they justify it, at least.

I know that they use children to justify their cause, and as are [i]all[/i] drugs are detrimental to the mind at an early age.