So, are the Democrats really the druggy party? Is this one of the reasons

Republicans think we're idiots?

I've participated in, and started a couple of threads dealing with marijuana in the last couple of days, and I confess that tempers have gotten a little hot and heavy on both sides of the argument. I've been accused of spreading misinformation (!), told I don't know what I'm talking about, and my personal family experiences/tragedies have been disparaged, and in one case, applauded, because of my understanding and non-support of illegal drug related issues.

So, I'm starting this thread for two reasons: 1) to say the IMPOLITE about what I, as a non-druggie, honestly think about people who do illegal drugs (and my flame suite is ready), and 2) to share the sources I consider to be credible, many of which have strongly influenced my opinions on the safety (and I'm not talking legality) of marijuana use.

I'll be blunt: I don't do illegal drugs, and I don't want them around my family. That includes marijuana.

Now, I don't care if you don't think Cornell University, Columbia University, Harvard Medical School, the Journals of Psychoactive Drugs, Psychopharmacology, and Neurotoxicology & Teratology (among others) are credible sources:

I do.

I find them to be far more credible than *ANY* group that has an agenda -- which includes the good folks of NORML, your local dealer, and anyone whose knowledge base starts with, "well, I did it, and I'm okay."

I get that teenagers frequently don't understand how "having sex" means "having a baby" nine months later, and I get it took a long time for people to understand that "cigarettes MIGHT cause cancer" which means I get that for some people who do NOT have a "problem" with marijuana (because they have all become productive members of society, make a good living, and are raising happy, well adjusted children) that MAYBE its not that big of a deal for them.

Except that it is illegal, and apparently there is something so amazingly wonderful about it, otherwise sane, sensible law abiding citizens are ending up IN JAIL because they just don't want to resist its allure.

Now I will confess to my vices -- I adore chocolate, especially at certain times of the month, and my secret passion for the occasional Vanilla Frapachino is truly the occasional guilty pleasure -- but if someone told *ME* I would have to go to jail for them, I don't think they'd be in my cupboard anymore, regardless of whether or not I agreed with the law in this case. Having them is NOT a matter of life and death, so why on earth would I risk having my world turned upside down, and my (still non-existent) children taken away from me? We aren't talking principled civil disobedience here -- we're talking about sneaking around like CRIMINALS, hiding one's behavior from law enforcement, possibly losing one's income (depending on the critical nature of the job), and paying a ton of money for something that may or may not be a safe mixture of what you are hoping to purchase, due to the unregulated nature of the distribution chain!

And yes, the same argument can be made about drunk driving: the minute you are stupid enough to get behind the wheel of a multi-ton automobile while inebriated, you have officially crossed over from "casual, recreational" into "dangerous idiot" and if you can't figure out where that line is on your own, then you deserve to have your driving privileges taken away. I don't really care if you don't think its fair that alcohol isn't treated the same -- one is legal, and one isn't -- and being stupid while under the influence of either is NOT something I deem to be appropriate social behavior.

So, let's go back to the issue of marijuana, and quit confusing how things "SHOULD BE" versus how things "ACTUALLY ARE" --

If you like marijuana so much that you are willing to go to jail for it, then I believe you have a problem. If you like marijuana so much that you are willing to LOSE YOUR CHILDREN, then I believe you have a problem. If you like marijuana so much that you are willing to lose your family's source of income over it, then I believe you have a problem. And if you don't understand why those of us who *don't* do illegal drugs for recreation think you are not really all that bright, then honestly, that's probably because the brain cells need to process logical concepts like "smart" and "safe" and "not illegal" have been burned out by a little too much weed.

Yes, I get that it doesn't affect every person exactly the same, and maybe you are in that 80% of people whose lives are not negatively impacted by the stuff you were doing in the basement during high school -- good for you! But let me repeat myself: ITS ILLEGAL.

If you don't have to respect the law because you think it’s stupid, what on earth gives you the right to expect Bush or Cheney or Rumsfeld or anyone else to put aside THEIR personal wants and desires just because "it’s the law?" Don't you get that THEY think some laws are stupid, too? And breaking them makes them "feel good" too?

Now, if you want it to become legal, that is your right, and you are free to run for office, petition for it, or whatever it takes BUT DON'T KEEP PRETENDING ITS NOT THAT BIG OF A DEAL BECAUSE THAT IS DISHONEST.

Don't like what the government has to say about the dangers associated with marijuana because they are all just big, bad control freaks who don't want you to have any fun?

Well, the good folks at Cornell University say this --

Cornell University: http://www.gannett.cornell.edu/top10Topics/alcohol-tobacco-drugs/AOD/whatToKnow_otherdrugs.html#question380
Is Marijuana Harmful? "it impairs judgment and complex coordination as well as slows reaction time. Automobile accidents and stupid mistakes are the biggest short-term risks associated with marijuana" (Kuhn et al, 1998, p 123).

Does marijuana affect learning and memory? "In research with college students, every day users were compared on a battery of cognitive tests with those who used only one time per month (Pope et al, 2001). After 24 hours of abstinence, daily marijuana users (versus those who used only one time per month) were more likely to repeat the same mistakes, had a hard time generating new solutions to problems, and had more problems with some types of memory tests. But, among those students who used once per month, those who had used daily in the past showed no difference in test scores from those who had never used heavily."

And hey, the nice people at Harvard Medical School say this --

Harvard Gazette, affiliated with Harvard Medical Schoolhttp://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2000/03.02/marijuana.html

Marijuana Said to Trigger Heart Attacks "Marijuana can be hard on the heart. In the first hour after smoking pot, a person’s risk of a heart attack could rise almost five times, according to a Harvard University researcher. (snip) These findings come from a study of 3,882 people who survived heart attacks. It was conducted at a number of centers around the country, including Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, where Mittleman works. In the study, 124 people reported using marijuana regularly. Of these, 37 people said they used it within 24 hours of their heart attacks. Nine said they smoked it within an hour of their attacks. From this data, the researchers conclude that the relative risk of a heart attack jumped 4.8 times within the first hour after smoking, then dropped to 1.7 times in the second hour. That’s still double the risk, but the drop indicates that the danger declines rapidly."

And here are EIGHTEEN MORE *respected* sourced studies done in the last fifteen years that can all be summed up as follows -- "IT AIN'T GOOD."

(But to be fair, only if you are young, old, sexually active, have AD/HD, have cancer, are pregnant, are having a transplant, have a compromised immune system, find schizophrenia to be a "bad" thing, find addiction to be scary, or don't mind lower testosterone counts, among other problems....)

Amen DG, Waugh M. High resolution brain SPECT imaging of marijuana smokers with AD/HD. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 1998;30:209-214. (Studies on 30 heavy marijuana users with AD/HD shows marked decreased activity in the right and left temporal lobes. Age range 16-46 ave age 28.)

Cherek, DR. 1993 Psychopharmacology 111 : 163-168. (Smoking marijuana caused increased aggressive behavior in inner-city males.)

Day et al. Neurotoxicology and Teratology 16;169-175, 1994). (Lower IQ in toddlers linked to prenatal marijuana exposure. The researchers found "significant negative effects of prenatal marijuana exposure on the performance' of both African American and Caucasian children in standard intelligence tests.)

Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University (CASA), Oct. 27, 1994. (Children who use marijuana are 85 times more likely to use cocaine than non-marijuana users. 90% of children who used marijuana, smoked or drank first. Children who drink are 50 times more likely to use cocaine than non drinkers.)

Chen, et al. 1997 Drug and Alcohol Dependence (46). (Of 9,000 daily users of marijuana, 35% of the adolescents and 18% of the adults met the American Psychiatric Association's criteria for dependence (addiction), suggesting that teenagers are much more vulnerable than adults to developing an addiction to marijuana.)

Kandel DB, Yamaguchi K, Chen K, Stages of Progression in Drug Involvement from Adolescence to Adulthood: Further Evidence for the Gateway Theory, J Stud. Alcohol; 1992:447-457. (Very few try illicit drugs other than marijuana without prior use of marijuana.)

Kendler KS, Prescott CA. Cannabis use, abuse, and dependence in a population based sample of female twins. American Journal of Psychiatry 1998;155:1016-1022 (Genetic risk factors have a strong impact on the liability for heavy use, abuse, and dependence on marijuana.)

AIDS Weekly, p.19, June 28, 1993. (HIV positive marijuana smokers have an increased incidence of bacterial pneumonia compared to non-marijuana smokers.)

British Medical Association, Therapeutic Uses of Cannabis. 1997. P.48...."cannabinoids have been shown to have immunosuppressive effect.....potentially damaging in individuals whose immune system is already compromised by HIV or chemotherapy." Cabral GA, Vasquez R. Cannabis: Physiopathology, Epidemiology, Detection. CRC Press 1993:137-153.(Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol suppresses macrophage extrinsic anti-herpes virus activity.)

Daaka Y, Zhu W, Friedman H, Klein T W. Induction of Interleukin-2 alpha gene by Delta-9-THC is mediated by nuclear factor kB and CBa cannabinoid receptor. DNA and Cell Biology 1997;16:301-309. (THC might augment AIDS development because of an increase in NK-kB which is known to activate the HIV genome and increase retro viral replication.)

Miguez-Berbano and associates, Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 1994;34-1031. (Smoking tobacco or marijuana reduced antioxidant levels in HIV-infected patients.) Vitamin E levels were significantly lower in marijuana users, as well as cigarette smokers, compared to non-smoking HIV infected subjects. "The results of this study indicate that both marijuana and cigarettes have a detrimental effect on vitamin E status of HIV-1 infected individuals. These findings are of particular concern in the light of the important role of Vitamin E in immune processes, inhibition of viral activation and the death of immune cells."

Sidney et al. American Journal of Public Health, 87:585-590, MJRR, 7/97. (Study reflected double mortality in AIDS patients who used marijuana.)

Transplantation, Vol. 61, June 27, 1996. (Marijuana smoke transmits aspergillosis, a fungus having up to a 90% fatality rate if contracted by transplant patients. Researchers have strongly warned against the use of marijuana in immuno-compromised patients such as those with AIDS, chronic granulomatous disease, bone marrow transplants and those receiving chemotherapy for small cell lung cancer.)

Scherrer et al. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, Vol.184, No. 10. (Studied Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASP) in 1874 pairs of identical male twins. When twins were randomly selected, 8 out of 10 ASP symptoms were more prevalent in persons with lifetime history of marijuana use. Identical twins have the same genetic makeup. This study clearly shows that marijuana use is not an inherited weakness but that drug use causes antisocial personality traits and symptoms.)

Barsky SH, Roth MD, Kleerup EC, Simmons M, Tashkin DP. Histopathologic and Molecular Alterations in Bronchial Epithelium in Habitual Smokers of Marijuana, Cocaine, and / or Tobacco. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 1998;90:1198-1204. (Bronchial mucosa biopsy specimens and brushings demonstrated statistically significant molecular abnormalities in marijuana and/ or cocaine smokers that have been associated with an increased risk of development of lung cancer.)

Fligiel SEG, Roth MD, Kleerup EC, Barsky SH, Simmons MS, Tashkin DP. Tracheobronchial histopathology in habitual smokers of cocaine, marijuana, and/or tobacco. Chest 1997;112:319-326 (Smokers of cocaine, marijuana, or tobacco had greater histopathologic abnormalities than controls and the effects were additive. The effects of marijuana were greater than tobacco or cocaine)

Tashkin DP. School Psychology International 1999; 20:23-37. (Effects of marijuana on the lung and its defenses against infection and cancer.)

Gold MS. Marijuana, NY: Plenum Medical Book Co., p.69-71. (In males, marijuana diminishes testosterone production and lowers sperm counts. In females, marijuana disrupts hormone cycles.)

But honestly, why believe any of these people? Probably what that nice (high school drop out?) drug dealer says is more relevant to YOUR life, right? It is really just one great big conspiracy designed to stop YOU from having some harmless fun.

On this, maybe the Repukes are right: we do have some idiots in our party, but its a big tent.

I wonder how many want to shove me out of it right now?

Asbestos Flame Retardant Suit: ON!

More power to ya... I think I'll focus on fuel costs, housing costs, insurance costs, etc.

movie and 800 automotive engineers, have a meeting regarding election fraud scheduled for June 25, am coordinating an infertility cycle, and awaiting a reply from Nancy Skinner (Dem House candidate for my district) to determine what level of financial / volunteer support I will be providing to her. (She's already got my vote, you understand.) :)

Honestly, I'm just in "a mood" -- although one of my other volunteer efforts involves attempting to keep illegal drugs out of the hands of minors, which I haven't had time to do much with lately!

We'll see how much of a tizzy the drug patrol gets into.... LOL!!! I'm a *BAD* girl! :spank:

I've watched DU argue this subject over years, and the education levels
of the drugs reformers here in this thread are significantly improved.

How inspiring... praise the lord.

Divisiveness won't help us, you know.

:hi:

:smoke:

:smoke:

I mean we do have just over four months left before midterms... that's, like, forever

Does the mere fact that something is illegal make anyone who would choose to do that thing unintelligent? White collar criminals are in existence everywhere. Prisons are filled with criminals of every stripe from stupid but well intentioned to smart and evil (see Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room for a perfect example of the latter). American history is filled with bullshit laws and conscientious objectors who refuse to follow them. Do I think it's a morally couragious thing to smoke pot? No. But am I foolish or do I have a lack of moral compass because I smoke pot? Of course not. I'm discreet about my smoking, so I'd be damned surprised if I ever get into any type of trouble for my usage. If I do, I'll be subjected to whatever punishment is deemed appropriate by the law. As with any risk, there are chances for penalties. That doesn't mean that one should avoid all risk in life, especially when you are referring to a victimless and consensual crime. High fructose corn syrup causes a myriad of problems in this country. Diabetes and many other diseases are caused by the stuff, and humans can life perfectly well without it. Do you think it should be illegal? Say you don't think it should become illegal, and it becomes so anyway, would you judge those who sought out dealers to get their Fanta fix due to the lack of sweetened beverages?

Marijuana use has pros and cons. I like it because of the cliched observation that it helps me "think outside the box". I have lots of faults in my life, I'm very disorganized (outside of the IT world), I don't have the best diet etc., but I don't attribute any of that to my marijuana use. I've been like that for as long as I can remember. I do, however, think that marijuana has made me a better IT professional because, as I previously mentioned, it helps me to think outside the box. I can't be sure, but I don't think I've ever gotten sick from smoking pot. In fact, where as I used to get extremely sick from bronchitis every single year, I haven't suffered from it at all since I discovered pot. Being a broncho-dilator, a few quick tokes loosens any congestion I have and I can painlessly cough it up. Sure as hell beats spending several days in misery and only being able to sleep by taking a massive dose of narcotic cough syrup.

Pot can do a lot of good for a lot of people. If someone chooses to smoke for their own benefit, I refuse to pass judgement on them. If someone chooses to smoke pot simply because they like the effects, and it ends up being a detriment to either their health or lifestyle, I still refuse to pass judgement on them. In this country, you shouldn't need reasons to make things legal, you should need reasons for making things illegal. Yes, pot can do some bad things to chronic users. Where do you draw the line though? Are all vices eventually to be made illegal? The purpose of any legislation should be harm reduction, not the legislating of morality. The drug war has exponentially increased harm by not only criminalizing a victimless act on behalf of the end user, but it also greatly increases risk to not only drug traffickers, but to innocent bystanders as well.

So, yes, I will continue to smoke pot because I've decided for myself the cost/benefit ratio rather than let someone else decide for me. I know I'm not hurting anyone else with my use, and if I'm hurting myself at all, at least I know that I got to make the choice. Who the fuck is anyone to tell me I shouldn't do otherwise?

Her personal tragedy (which WASN'T caused by pot) drives her to swallow bald-faced lies.

She has an emotion-driven agenda. It's sad to see.

(And she's wrong. But she refuses to listen to reason and facts.)

Watch your speed on that 55 mph road...

Well, you've made your case. And I'm sure for every cite you've provided, there are others that refute your assertions.

You might have made a case in one of those other threads, if you wanted to reach your target audience, but it's always more fun I guess, to start yet another new thread on an old subject. In the military, we had a term for that, when someone had to revisit a document and change the way it was presented, or the points made--this was usually because they had the rank to do it, though. We called it "peeing on the tree."

Really, though, I don't give a shit. Kids are dying left and right in EyeRack, the chickenhawk is making an ass of himself on the world stage, so this particular issue isn't front and center on my radar nowadays. I'm more interested in the future of the world than in the use of a weed that grows wild around it.

Must've escaped your notice that there are left-libertarians in the world, too. Shhh!

Are Libertarians liberal or conservative?
Libertarians are neither. Unlike liberals or conservatives, Libertarians advocate a high degree of both personal and economic liberty. For example, Libertarians agree with conservatives about freedom in economic matters, so we're in favor of lowering taxes, slashing bureaucratic regulation of business, and charitable -- rather than government -- welfare. But Libertarians also agree with liberals on personal tolerance, so we're in favor of people’s right to choose their own personal habits and lifestyles.

In a sense, Libertarians “borrow” from both sides to come up with a logical and consistent whole -- but without the exceptions and broken promises of Republican and Democratic politicians. That's why we call ourselves the Party of Principle.
http://www.lp.org/article_85.shtml

Like I said, Republicans (who advocate drowning the federal government in a bathtub) who wanna smoke pot--a personal lifestyle decision!

As opposed to the authoritarian, theocratic control freaks of the GOP, who I agree with exactly 0% of the time.

(it's useful to make a distinction between small-l libertarian philosophy, particularly the social variety, which is shared by many on the left, and the big-L Libertarian Party)

I am a liberal because I do not believe in imposing my beliefs on others, and if that were not what liberalism was about then I would be outta here. I don't like tobacco either but I don't want them outlawed just restricted in such a manner they can be used like in public places. The realities of stopping the drug business is impossible try telling the poor farmers in Afghanistan to not grow opium.

Whichever they choose is their problem.

On edit: Are you bored? Volunteer!

to keep these substances away from your family, instead of the government, which as you apparently know does such a great job of keeping drugs out of our families and communities.

If you want to perpetuate the War on Drugs, you are pro-drug dealer and pro-drug death. You may think you aren't, but that's where it all begins. With parents wanting to cede their responsibilities to the state.

If you're such a public health advocate why don't I ever see you posting on environmental issues?

You seem to be an aggrieved person who wants to see someone else punished for mistakes made by people you loved. The psychology is understandable, but it's people in your position who brought the War on Drugs to my doorstep. So I can't forgive you until you open your eyes.

I can't be an advocate for public health without posting about environmental issues -- :wtf:

You think I'm "aggrieved" and want someone else punished for "mistakes" made by the people I love -- people LIED TO THEM AND TOLD THEM DRUGS WEREN'T BAD, and THAT is something that has my righteous wrath in a full tizzy.

I don't really care if you forgive me or not -- I haven't done ANYTHING to you, but you keep saying that *I* am bringing the "war on drugs" to YOUR doorstep -- projecting much?

You think I'm pro-drug dealer? :rofl: Probably as much as I'm pro-Bush! :rofl:

But you keep not taking responsibility for your own life. Its ... kind of sad, really. :(

Am I not taking responsibility for my own life?

My point is that you want the police and the government to solve your family's problems. I don't think drugs are good, I think the war on drugs is bad. And, most importantly to my logic, drug enforcement is the origin of drug dealing... and hence the people who "LIED AND TOLD THEM DRUGS WEREN"T BAD."

Would you like an amendment to the constitution limiting free speech to the extent that people can't say that drugs are good? Where exactly would you draw the line in your quest to take away freedom?

I don't care if you want to post negative medical information about marijuana, any more than I care if people post posititve medical information about it. It's your support for the war on drugs that I find utterly intolerable.

...on the environment which is why we would like to see less of a focus on 'illegal drugs'. The other poster made a valid point about you giving the state the authority to make all the decisions regarding what's good for you. That's hardly the enlightened attitude I've seen you display on other issues.

Anyway I guess there is nothing stopping you from expressing 'your opinion' and that is all it is. Having used grass for 40 years, I've seen your "evidence" discredited, time and time again. My own personal experience would be enough to disprove most of your assertions but there are a multitude of scientific studies that back me up and you seem in no hurry to be 'enlightened'.

Marijuana IS a gateway drug....the gateway to enlightenment.
.
.

It's simply not possible to make a statistically significant observation from personal experience. If the "personal experience" you're alluding to is experience of conducting a rigorous study, then of course discount what I'm saying, but if, as I assume, it's just experience of knowing some people who have taken cannabis regularly then the sample is too small, the observations are too subjective, and the measurements aren't sufficiently accurate for it to be useful.

You haven't seen the claim that marijuana *can* be harmful discredited. You almost certainly have seen the claim that it is *always* harmful discredited, but that's not a claim anyone has ever made.

There are indeed scientific studies that back up the claim that marijuana is harmless, but there are considerably more, and more reputable, ones that disagree with that. It sometimes *is* an aggravating factor in mental health problems, there is good (although not yet conclusive) evidence that it can cause them from scratch, and I believe there is also evidence for other risks, although I can't remember what they are.

I agree that it should be legal - it's not nearly as dangerous as tobacco, my understanding is - but I think it should certainly carry a health warning when sold, and I certainly won't be experimenting with it.

I don't know anything about the evidence either for or against it being a gateway drug, I'm ashamed to say. I suspect that to some extent it is, because one has to learn how to buy drugs to aquire it, and it somewhat numbs the shock of "oh my god, that's illegal, I can't do that", but if it is then I'd think that's an argument for, rather than against, legalisation - it would be less likely to lead to other illegal drugs if it weren't put into the same circles as them.

and it's a real buzz kill. I'm just kidding here, i see your point. But with all the problems we have going on in this country, i'm going to pass on this thread just like i did the other threads on this topic.

Peace!

can result in destructive behavior as can any drug, food or habit.

I find your posts an intimidation and invitation to "bring it on" mentality.

An obsessive compulsive abuser, would surely not realize?.. that the entire
progressive planet would be fooled by such a farcical, patriarchal pronouncement.

That they might look to the source of the abusive tone, that toxic introduction,
and the conscious choice to use a republican meme as a methodology in argument,
that of nixon's drugs war to disenfranchise all those "jews and hippies" from raining
on his imperial war in southeast asia.

And it is just a meme endemic to our media-culture, to the "cops" tv programme,
and to the jackbooted thugs who run the drugs war. Repeat our memes or die,
take them in to the progressive temple, and we will deconstruct them,
thank you Ida for the ivory coathook. :smoke:

Have some chocolate. Peace.

Marijuana is safe, safer than the legal intoxicants, certainly safer than many of the prescription intoxicants currently marketed by big pharma.

Legalization and regulation would end the drug war, save us huge sums of money, generate revenue, shut down the stupid prison-industrial complex, and end the major health risks associated with illegal drugs: incarceration and impurity.

If you do not choose to use an intoxicant or any intoxicant, good for you. Please stop insisting on imposing your personal morality on my private affairs.

credible sources, I should believe you just because you say its so. :eyes:

And no I don't have time to go check them all out. You might as well post 20 credible sources on intelligent design, its still bullshit.

Ok I checked out your first link. You posted a link to a Cornell Q&A about drugs, not a scientific study. Please don't waste my time. What bullshit.

now I am actually pissed off.

Your second link is also not a scientific study, despite your attempt to claim it is. You are shameless.

Oh and that was it: your two verifiable links were bullshit. Nice work.

Go use google for yourself. The part that has you in a tizzy is my use of the word "more" -- the first link uses real live scientific sources INSIDE OF IT (because Cornell always likes to lie to people publicly on its web pages!), and the second is a newspaper report on a scientific study conducted at Harvard Medical School, while the eighteen OTHER sources are mainly JOURNAL REFERENCES to scientific studies.

If you don't like my formatting, try this for a list of DIFFERENT SOURCES --

Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 1998
1993 Psychopharmacology
Neurotoxicology and Teratology 1994
Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University 1994
1997 Drug and Alcohol Dependence
Stages of Progression in Drug Involvement from Adolescence to Adulthood: Further Evidence for the Gateway Theory, J Stud. Alcohol; 1992:447-457.
American Journal of Psychiatry 1998
AIDS Weekly, p.19, June 28, 1993.
British Medical Association, 1997
DNA and Cell Biology 1997;
Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 1994
American Journal of Public Health, 87:585-590, MJRR, 7/97
Transplantation, 1996
The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, Vol.184, No. 10
Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 1998;
Chest 1997
School Psychology International 1999
Marijuana, NY: Plenum Medical Book Co., p.69-71.

You've read them all, and know them to be full of lies? Because your medical degree, years of study, and regular scientific studies / tests have proven them all wrong?

Present me with something credible, or be laughed at for your ignorance. :)

(And the good folks at Cornell actually give references to the scientific studies in their "easy to understand Q&A", which is why I put it in first, while the "bottom eighteen" are from real live drug studies written in scientific jargon with words most of us don't even understand. But don't let facts and reality interfere with your opinion, please. Thinking is hard work!)

Did it affect how they wrote the constitution or any other business of the government?

It was approved over twenty years ago.

How do you work your mind around that one?

is that marijuana is less dangerous and addictive than nicotine cigarettes and alcohol. Do you support making those much more deadly drugs illegal as well?

The other problems you site are no different than side effects of many prescription drugs currently on the market. That's no reason to lock someone in jail.

You're making the thread starter look stupid.... er, stupider?

:takes another toke:

:evilgrin:

Educate A Freeper - Flaunt Your Opinions!
http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

...which isn't very safe, really. But how would legalizing it end the drug war? There's still coke, meth, smack, and a whole batch of other drugs. What about them?

How many people have died from drinking booze?

Now how many people have died from smoking marijuana?

I was speaking in terms of harm to a person and harm to a culture. Any time people don't live up to their potential, society loses. Marijuana does much to lessen a person's potential.

A healthy society promotes achievement so that everyone benefits. That's the whole argument for regulating drugs. No man is an island.

Deaths due to marijuana: Zero

"Lessen a person's potential" is certifiable bullshit.

Most people go on pause when they become heavy marijuana users. It happened to me for a while, and to many of my friends. When we woke up from our drug-induced haze, we started taking more adult responsibilities and looking out for ourselves. It's a common story.

And I highly doubt that nobody got stoned last year and drove off a bridge - or in to a family of four coming home from vacation. High end pot will make a mess of you, and destroy your ability to safely drive a car every bit as much as booze does.

If you went on a pause, it's probably because you're lazy.

Do you smoke pot? If so, how are you progressing?

And perfectly fine, thanks for asking.

Most of the folks I know who smoked pot regularly didn't accomplish a damn thing while they were doing it. If things are different for you, then kudos.

as well as some who didn't. I think most of those who smoked pot and stagnated were going to stagnate anyway, personally. Some of those who didn't stagnate eventually found the drug didn't interest them anymore, and gradually stopped doing it regularly. Others I know continued using it regularly as they advanced professionally and/or academically.

The doctor next door who smokes, or the scientist, or whatever else isn't going to attract our notice. Just the ones who fail. People have already mentioned in this thread the idea that Carl Sagan smoked, his ex-wife was also an official of NORML. The following is an article Carl Sagan wrote about marijuana under the name Mr X back in 1969 describing his early experience with it.

I think it's safe to assume that he continued to advance just fine, and he did continue use.

http://www.marijuana-uses.com/essays/002.html

The stuff isn't harmless especially for those with a predisposition for problems or who use it to hide from life, but it's not the pot that we see there so much as the problems it masks. If it wasn't pot it might have been alcohol, or prescription abuse, or whatever else. College scholarships have been lost to Nintendo. We've been punishing and damaging large numbers of people because it's somewhat risky to small numbers of them. The majority would have been better off left alone.

during the filming of the Cosmos series, he wasn't living up to his potential?

...I began when I was 15. Over those years I've varied my usage-- sometimes smoking daily, sometimes going for months without toking at all, but I've been a consistent pot smoker for all those years. I thoroughly enjoy the altered perception that marijauna provides. I've also acquired a research Ph.D., become a tenured university professor, am respected in my field, etc. I'm a scientist, a teacher, and an artist. I have most definitely not gone "on pause" in my life (although DU has a way of threatening to put whole days on pause sometimes, LOL).

The point is that people do what they feel motivated to do with their lives. Pot doesn't give them anything more than they were born with and it doesn't take anything away, either. Sometimes it's just easy to smoke a bowl and sit around the house all day watching old movies or playing video games. Some folks find it easy to pass months or years that way. Others don't. Frankly, I doubt that many of the former represent potential Einsteins or JFKs that dope smoking robbed from society.

As for Ida's OP, there is a lot of sloppy science described in her lengthy bibliography. I can say that with some assurance because I use similar analyses myself, and I'm familiar with the myriad ways to misconstrue one's data. Let's see, 9 out of 127 people had heart attacks within one hour of smoking pot, therefore pot smoking increases the risk of heart attack by 4.8 times during the first hour? :rofl: That's the sort of inference that trips up undergraduates in statistics 101. Seriously.

I'm not going to argue with Ida about it-- her mind is utterly closed on this topic, and I admire her energy, even if I do think it's unfortunately misdirected.

I don't think pot is evil, or will turn any Einsteins in to losers, but I don't doubt for a minute that it can lessen the hights a person will acheive. On some folks, that's going to amount to the difference between being self sufficient or not - a significant issue for society to consider before legalizing it.

an already deep side effect of our society's sickness, one that makes us all sick,
where we are defined by what we "do" like a bunch of juggling horses, and sometimes
we can smoke a bowl and just be a horse instead of a juggler.

Maybe our society is deeply unnatural and with that toxic input, the human spirit
needs to keep touch with its unformed, undefined, other-side, and as you wall it off
culturally with monopolists grabbing every square inche of though-space for their imperial
project, to turn them all off with a switch, click.

The question i think more appropriate, is what sociological conditions have arisen in
the last century that shift the culture from a more european-alcohol based focus to a
far-eastern cannabis based one, and whether freedom of religion can recognize that
cannabis is a religious sacrament in the east.

Your claim may or may not be valid, but if you're going to make a post criticising the use of statistics, you probably oughtn't to present anecdotal evidence in support of it as though it was worth something.

or drug use of any kind, because those with jobs and careers and families are afraid of losing those, so naturally most won't fess up.

Until we stop demonizing this stuff we'll never know.

My favorite stoner: Carl Sagan

:)

I hate these statistics which are created for the sole purpose of making something look bad. I know many people with advanced degrees and good jobs who - call me crazy - enjoy an herb which is far less addictive than either coffee or cigarettes, and less damaging than most drugs legal or otherwise.

At work one day, we had a "meeting" describing our new drug tests, and the presenter said that "48% of workplace accidents were drug or alcohol related." then later claimed that "if you are a user, even if you are not using at work, you are far more likely to cause an accident."

I pointed out the flaws in their logic - first that slightly over half of the accidents are sobriety-related, and that being so close to 50-50 it doesn't show true causality. And also that for a true inference, you would need to know not only the number of users and non-users causing accidents, but also the breakdown of all of the people not causing accidents; in other words it's entirely possible that 99% of the people who would test positive for marijuana (and who may not have smoked in days or weeks) are not having accidents. or any number.

A room full of engineers gave me an ovation. They agreed it was bullshit, even the ones who did not smoke. if you're screwing up; fine. If you have a glowing record of exceeding expectations, it is insulting to be drug tested. It's also insulting to be in a nation that has such a HUGE amount of it's citizens in jail for what is a "non-crime".

Not to mention that the only thing a prohibition does is create a black market, which makes criminals rich (including crooked cops and politicians), creates "criminals" out of people who are otherwise good citizens, and increases the danger because of the crime - I would put money down that more people die from black market violence than the drugs themselves.

EDIT:
also, does a law necessarily stop behavior? Does prostitution still exist? Do people still do drugs? Do people speed in their cars? I am not saying we need to get rid of all laws, obviously, but we need to seriously rethink a lot of the so-called vice laws, most of which activities are inherently fairly victimless.

I think they were right and you were wrong about the interpretation of that statistic


If 48% of workplace accidents take place under the influence of drugs or alcohol, then if we assume that the average worker spends *far* less that 48% of their time under the influence of drugs or alcohol (which is certainly true) then that *is* good evidence that using being under the influence of drugs or alcohol increases the risk of an accident significantly.

It's entirely possible that only 1% of people under the influence of drugs and alcohol have accidents in a given time perion given that statistic, but (given the obvious assumption that most people aren't, most of the time) this then implies that much fewer than 1% of the sober populace have accidents in that time period.

Let S be the proportion of people who have accidents on a given day.
Let A be the proportion of sober people who have accidents on a given day.
Let a be the proportion of unsober people who have accidents on a given day.

Number of drug-related accidents per day = (1-S)a
Number of non drug-related accidents per day = SA.

We have, approximately, (1-S)a = SA (using the approximation 0.48 = 0.52)

a = A x S/(1-S)

But S is very close to 1; probably higher than 0.9 or even 0.95 or more, so a will be *much* higher than A. That level of correlation *is* good evidence of causation.

What you appear to be doing is comparing AS to a(1-S); the numbers as opposed to the odds. But if I take a group of a thousand people and a group of five people and tell you I'm going to kill one member of each, which would you rather be a member of?

I'm mildly worried that a room full of engineers gave you an ovation. What do they make?

This type of thing is one of the lies that keep the drug war going. Some drugs such as pot stay in your system for weeks after use but the effect itself lasts only hours. You could smoke a little friday night and have an accident the next tuesday and a drug test would show positive. That doesn't mean drugs had anything to do with it. The stats are artificially inflated.

Same with emergency room visits. If I'm sitting in my living room minding my own business and the picture frame above me fell so I needed a couple of stitches they are likely to ask me if I've taken any drugs before they give anesthetic and such. Say yes and it goes down on the form and that's now a drug related incident. It's not, but that's how it shows on the stats.

Treatment is the biggest one these days, they pass "great" new laws that say treatment instead of prison then after forcing large numbers of people through at the risk of prison, loss of job, or getting kicked out of school we point to the stats of climbing treatment rates and say it proves a problem.

Really?

There's a lot going on with this stuff that's a long way from reflecting reality. The idea that engineers can tell bullshit when they hear it seems a good one.

Are you claiming that at any given time, the number of people *in the workplace* who would register as "under the influence of alchohol or drugs" is not much lower than the number who would?

If you're not, then my claim stands: that is good evidence that being under the influence makes you more likely to have an accident.

If you are, then that *would* invalidate my claim, but I'd be very sceptical indeed.

They may well be artificially inflated, but not be the extent I think would be necessary to get parity if there *wasn't* a link, given how many more people I suspect aren't than are under the influence at any given time.

It may well be that the engineers were applauding something other than that particular use of statistics (equally, it may just be that they were stupid engineers, or engineers of a type that don't need to know stats). But it *is* a flagrant mistake; the kind of thing I'd expect to see with "explain why this doesn't work" on an A-level stats paper.

It's not a good idea to spend a lot of time high, if you've ever read a word I've written you should know that much. That seems a pretty silly assumption to jump to from the statement I made which was that the stats are artificially inflated. You really don't need to assume things to make your point. When someone offers you bullshit stats feeding it back to them strikes me as a reasonable idea. Let them know we know it's bull.

If you'd like the statistics on driving among other things while high you might want to spend a little time at the following site. Hell, I'll include the pair, facts and distortions. They were set up by a guy who has destroyed drug warriors in debate and they won't deal with him anymore, it's not the most detailed or last word on any subject but it's a pretty solid collection of defensible facts and statements on both the real risks and the lies about drugs. The first set up around exploring the truths and the second based on exposing some of the falsehoods.

http://drugwarfacts.org/
http://www.drugwardistortions.org/

If

a) 48% of accidents in the workplace are to someone under the influence of drugs. b) much less than 48% of people in the workplace are under the influence of drugs.

then that is good evidence that being under the influence of drugs increases the risk of having an accident in the workplace, and hence is not bullshit.

Now I've never heard a) claimed before, and I'm willing to believe it's not true, but simply saying "it's bullshit" isn't enough to convince me, and I can't see anything referring to or disputing it in either of your links.

Incidentally, the cause that got me into this subthread was that of decent use of statistics, not drug legislation - I'm a mathematician, not a medic or a politician. Even if a) isn't true, the response unpossibles gave was still wrong, and the person making it, even if their statistic was wrong, was at least using it the right way.

I said in the post "Some drugs such as pot stay in your system for weeks after use but the effect itself lasts only hours. You could smoke a little friday night and have an accident the next tuesday and a drug test would show positive. That doesn't mean drugs had anything to do with it. The stats are artificially inflated."

There is no test used I'm aware of to see if a person is currently high on pot, the test is for a remainder that can stay in the bloodstream days to weeks after use. When you have an accident you get tested, results positive and that's on the record. As far as they are concerned you were high and it really doesn't matter if it was that afternoon or the week before that you were high. Yeah, the stat is bull at least as far as effected by things such as thc metabolites. No, that doesn't make being high at work a good idea but answering a bad idea with lies or inflated stats we know aren't true isn't an answer either.

What they've got isn't 48% who were high, they had 48% who were either high or who had been in recent weeks. That's pure bull when used for what they want it to mean.

it very well, but, as the other poster said, I DO believe that the variable you call "a" is not true, in that many drugs stay in your system (as far as showing up in tests) far longer than the effects do, thus it's impossible to know the true "A" or the true "a" at all.

Wouldn't you have to know both true values to really know what the odds of an accident were?

I have no way of knowing wither, but we had very seldom accidents (it was a fiber optic plant, very successful until the dot.com crash and when they moved the plant overseas for cheap labor.... but that's another story) and most of those were truly accidental in nature.

I have no way of knowing who would test positive for drugs (Whereas who was actually intoxicated I would say is close to or equal to "0"). In other words, I am claiming that the number of non-sober people (a) is a lot lower than the number who would test positive.

I don't do much of anything, for the record. I almost never drink or smoke pot, and I don't believe in going to work high at all on anything (including OTC cold medicines), but if I smoked on a Saturday night and something randomly happened the next Thursday which I had nothing to do with causing, it would possibly be written up as a "drug-related accident" if I tested positive.

And yes, I say that's bullshit. And yes, the drug testing company (the people doing the presentation) is going to inflate their statistics to sell their product, in my opinion.

smart smokers just quit for a month or two when they are job hunting.

Five years DAILY now, the "high-end" stuff, and I:

1) Work a 40+ workweek in satellite broadcasting

2) Pay my child support

3) maintain healthy relationships

3) am involved in several creative endeavors, including teaching myself to draw

4) bathe regularly and do all the normal things non-herbalists do

I could go on, but my own LIFE proves your assertion bullshit, at least in my case, and the cases of professionals I know, and all those lawyers and doctors and scientists (like Carl Sagan) who have lived productive lives.

Your assertion simply isn't universally true. Period.

He said "most people". So any number of counter examples won't prove him wrong (well, unless you get up to half the sample set as individual anecdotes).

That said, it's a sufficiently nebulous claim that I'm not sure it can be said to be either "proved" or "disproved", or even have evidence for or against it put forewards, without first agreeing a set of measurable criterion for "being on the pause".

saying that drinking alcohol makes you a binge drinker. It does not.

Some of the claims in this thread are more than disheartening.

most of the alcoholics in the government do. Since they are outlawing everything sex,and the drugs they don't like then how about lets get the prohibition thing going again for alcohol and no drinks after work when someone has a hard day at work. Some smoke a joint after a hard days work and some take a drink but if they do too much its a problem. Didn't the founding fathers smoke that peace pipe?

Treating drug abuse as a law enforcement issue is insanity, and of course it doesn't work. Treatment counseling education and regulation would actually mitigate the costs and harm caused by substance abuse.

In your world, could I go buy a tub of morphine for recreational use?

That would be the regulated part, the rational part. So the truly dangerous drugs - the opiates for example, would probably be available only in clinics. This would of course take organized crime right out of the picture, as well as 'junkie need a fix crime'. It turns out that you can live a long and relatively healthy life as a heroin addict if your dosage is regulated and pure. You will however suffer from chronic constipation.

That doesn't sound like much fun, really. Or would I be released to the streets after the injection?

I'll tell you this much - nobody is going to snort coke and hang around a clinical environment insatead of nightclubs. So how do you regulate cocaine?

Where it's decriminalized and they have far less problems with it.

Don't go looking for cocaine or meth in a cafe there, and don't show any cops a bag of ecstacy pills if you don't want to be arrested.

They dispense them in clinics.

..to where clinics in Holland are distributing meth and coke to people outside of a drug rehabilitation setting? I sure can't find one.

Hard core addicts are just being herded around like cattle. These clinics are not for the user who has yet to hit rock bottom, which is where any drug problem needs to be addressed.




The new Stek building, a smart bungalow next to a canal, combines drug-taking rooms with a cafe and common room. From an addict's point of view, the benefits are obvious. 'Before they built this place,' says Martin, 34, a crack and heroin user for 16 years, 'they hunted us. You had to use on the street and look behind you. Now you can really enjoy your stuff, and you're not so stressed. Life is much less aggressive.'

At the same time, Vewer argues, wider society is also better off. The addicts' centres provide immediate access to rehabilitation programmes and employment training for those who want them, and some work at the centres themselves, cleaning, cooking or washing clothes and bedding. Ruud Laukon, a field coordinator from Utrecht's main drug social work project, the Centrum Mallieban, works seamlessly with Vewer: 'We and the police have the same viewpoint. If you treat addicts as criminals, they'll treat you as criminals do. Sending them to prison doesn't solve anything.'

The addicts used to spend their days in a dark, fetid pedestrian tunnel beneath the Hoog Catherijne mall, which has now been closed. Intimidating and dangerous for passers-by, it also saw frequent violence between addicts. 'It's much easier now to have good relationships with them,' Vewer says. 'It creates a set of rules, and the addicts know they have to abide by them. It makes the scene much easier to control.'

But the story you linked to is a far cry from the recreational safety of drugs that we were talking about. That clinic is essentially for the walking dead who would otherwise be living in an underground tunnel and committing acts of violence against each other. It's one way Holland is trying to combat the tragedy of drug addiciton, and doesn't really show any benefits of legalization.

That's a far cry from selling cocaine in bars, as you were advocating.

Leave it in the hands of criminals and we still have unknown purity, quality, and we feed the criminal markets. Regulate it and we deprive criminal markets of funds and can control both access and purity. I'm not aware of a method tried with coke yet but I'm sure it's possible, we didn't know for sure we could do as much as we have now before someone found the guts to try. Free use I don't agree with but regulation based on science seems sound. Here's an example, or two aspects of one example. A recent article about heroin treatment and some detail about the heroin aspect of the program. Second one is older but related.

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/439/swissresults.shtml

http://www.dpft.org/heroin.htm

We need to stop assuming what is and isn't better before we've even given it a decent study, we do seem to have better options and we're restricting exploration of them rather than pursuing them.

And should be regulated the same way we regulate booze.

...with booze. I don't have the same feeling of security with coke, and never mind the addictive qualities. On top of that, nobody is going to inject booze, as can be dangerously done with coke.

Do you honestly feel that coke and crack should be sold in bars like liquor? What would that world look like? Sounds creepy and scary to me.

It happens. They also have a nasty habit of car accidents after drinking.

what form it's in makes no difference, it's a BAD drug. Since you obviously have little knowledge, cocaine can be freebased and precipitated back to flake and then smoked, just like rock.

the above poster said "relatively safe'- not "safe". It's not a 'good' drug, no, but clean powdered cocaine is not all that dangerous. In large quantities, snorted all night or just too much, it can be. If you have heart problems, it definitely can be. But clean powdered cocaine is relatively safe. I've never had a problem with it as I know my body and I know my drugs (thus making me a responsible user when I choose to use.) I can say the same for almost everyone I know who does it, or used to do it, once in awhile. Now- long term use, and regular use, can tear your body up something fierce.

Back to the coke does not equal crack- not much to say there. Crack is bad.

Cocaine hydrochloride is regular powder coke. There are several ways to remove the salt which is referred to as "free-basing". Once the salt is removed (the hydrochloride part) it can be made into a snortable, smokable or injectable forms. When the salt is removed, the coke becomes 13% stronger due to the molecular weight of the salt. Rock cocaine commonly referred to as crack, is nothing more that ONE type of freebase coke. What I referred to in my last post is referred to as angel flake, which as I described is a precipitated form of free-base coke that can be snorted, smoked or slammed.

So what it comes down to is that the ONLY difference between powder coke and "crack" is the salt molecule, and even then powder coke can be a free-base form as I pointed out.

You may not have problems with coke, cristal etc. consider yourself lucky.

well I've not heard of that, so I'll take your word for it. :thumbsup:

Otherwise, making comments like "You have no idea what you are talking about" is not a very nice way to have a discussion with someone.

:eyes:

my bad. :-)

:hi:

I'm with you. I think that powdered cocaine isn't dangerous for people without heart issues if used responsibly. I know plenty of people that use it recreationally with zero problems. I used to do it very regularly, then I just stopped. I suffered no ill effects. I wanted it, but didn't need it. I've done it a few times since.

Anyway, since I'm one of those people who is just fascinated by drugs, I actually have a book called "The Pleasures of Cocaine" and it does give methods to turn coke into crack. It also gives ways to purify your coke. It's pretty much a pain in the ass though. I doubt the average crack user is going to both with it, since they can just buy it in that form. As for the purifying, too much effect for a small amount.

It's an interesting read though. It was written in the 70s and comes complete with whacky little disco line drawings.

In fact I'm going to look it up on erowid.org later, because that stuff just interests me. Sounds like an interesting read!

I've only ever known your run of the mill now and again coke users (sometimes bingers) and sometimes crack smokers. All of whom were more interested in acid and shrooms anyhow. ;) I've done coke a few times and for being a semi hypochondriac I was absolutely shocked the first time I did it, how it wasn't some crazy speedy fucked up feeling like I was taught in school, haha.

Yeah, I was totally shocked also that coke wasn't a scary speedy fucked up feeling. Hell my ADD meds did worse when I first took them. Once again, DARE had lied to me.

Unfortunately, I've never found any acid. Even though drug dealers apparently have all illegal drugs available. :eyes:

:)

taking my buddies' ritalin in jr. high, and someone else's adderol (sp?) in high school- and those ephedrine & caffeine pills from the gas station- they all made me a lot more hyper, speedy, and weird than coke did. Coke made me feel like a normal social person. That's handed down to me by my mom- she did a lot of coke in her teens and early 20's, and quit when she got knocked up with me. She told me when we were discussing drug decriminalization and/or regulation that if coke were to become legal before she dies, that coke would be what kills her. What can I say, my mama loves the shit. :)

Acid is hard to come across, as is opium, both are awesome. I've never met a dealer that had more than 2 or 3 drugs they sold, though a few of them supposedly "knew other people" (and yet they never came through). I found out on erowid recently that shroom spores are legal to possess because the spores themselves do not have psilocybin or psilocin- until the fungus is formed. So you can actually purchase tons of different strains of spores and even growing kits online- it ain't illegal til you are actually growing them! Our drug laws are just crazy. Erowid is an awesome site, that's for sure!

I can order spores for under $20 that will give me massive amounts of shrooms. Our drug laws are so absurd. The only things shrooms have caused me to do is say random shit, think the tv is talking to me, and see pretty colors and stars. Even after a "bad" trip, I still feel amazing the next day. Better than I normally do.

but I would wager that the one of the reasons things like crack are created is because it's illegal. if you reduce the volume of it, it's is most likely easier to smuggle.

This is just a thought - I have no idea. And I am sure that there are folks who would do it just to make it stronger.

Its more potent, so you get more value for your smuggling space.

I feel coke should be legalized and controlled. Take it away from the cartels that way and treat the addicts, instead of imprisoning them.

Coke is much smoother; you'll be pretty much on top of the world for 20-30 minutes (as opposed to 90 seconds) and then still be feeling pretty good for a while afterwards. Crack makes you feel good a couple minutes and then you'll start fiending. I've never tried it, but I know a couple coke using friends that basically tried crack once and decided it was an addictive, horrible thing that wasn't worth any of the risks.

The penalties for crack are actually tougher, so while you reduce the volume, you'll be facing stiffer fines. This is one of the reasons why a black user is more likely to end up in jail than a white user. Crack is mostly in the ghettos. Coke is more affulent. It also usually doesn't get turned into crack until it hits the US. Coke is relatively harmless to many people, but once it's turned into crack, it's a very scary drug. "Cocaine: An Unauthorized Biography" is a really interesting read. It follows the history of the drug from the South American natives to current use, and it has a big chapter on how fast crack spread.

Yesterday I went to the funeral of one of my husband's friends - 35 years old, married 11 years, no kids - he o.d.'d on cocaine and collapsed shortly after (while in a Wal-Mart, no less), and died. This guy's wife is in her early 30's, far too young to be a widow. The funeral service was devastating; even the priest was crying. I NEVER want to see that again.

I am with the OP on this. I am completely against drugs; even if I weren't before yesterday, I certainly am now!

Now we need to get to the method to control drugs. Since you mention cocaine I'll use it as an example. Here's our record with cocaine so far with the enforcement methods we've followed for recent decades. This is a record we want to continue?

Trends in Average Cocaine Prices (1981 - 2002) (prices are down sharply at the user level)
http://www.briancbennett.com/charts/fed-data/cocaine-prices.htm

Trends in Average Cocaine Purity (1981 - 2002) (note the trend at the user level, up since we started)
http://www.briancbennett.com/charts/fed-data/cocaine-purity.htm

Cocaine Induced Deaths in graph form
http://www.briancbennett.com/charts/death/cocaine.htm

Cocaine Induced Deaths as death rates and raw numbers
http://www.briancbennett.com/charts/death/cdc/cocaine-yr.htm

If we want to save lives we've got to take a serious look at our policies and see why prices have fallen, purity has climbed, death rates have increased by several times and we've accomplished nothing but to fill prisons and to finance our enemies.

Drugs can be dangerous and I spent too much time wading through the death rates to think otherwise, but a policy that has with no doubt done nothing but to increase the death and damage is exactly the wrong way to respond. It's the only way this nation has tried in any major way so far though.

If we want to reduce the damage rather than to "get even" with something take some time to look into the area of harm reduction and how other nations are dealing with these issues. Given that prohibition is a UN mandate so their freedom to experiment is limited we've still seen some pretty surprising results with other methods. We lose lives like that of your friend because our death rates are high and we've made drugs as dangerous as possible instead of as safe and controlled as possible, they are that high as a direct result of current policy. Change the policy and save some lives.

:hug:

Tobacco - 450,000.

All illicit drugs: 17,000.

Year 2000. Source http://www.stopaddiction.com/narconon_alcohol_deaths.html#

Cocaine is not more dangerous than alcohol and should be regulated on an equivalent basis. Marijuana is far less dangerous than just about any drug at all and should be regulated accordingly.

I am sorry about your friend. It is not the state's responsibility to monitor our private activities and punish us for not behaving according to your moral standards.

It works. They're not clogging up the jails and the numbers of drug users have actually gone down. I also know plenty of coke users (none addicted to it) that are more likely to hang out around the house talking their asses off than going to a nightclub. Cocaine's a weird drug. Ruins the lives of some, but easily handled by others.

you cannot kill yourself with pot consumption, and pot does not destroy brain cells.

It didn't work for booze, it's not working for much else, either.

Let's stop wasting money & law enforcement / judicial resources!

Between "marijuana is safe" and "marijuana is safer than the legal intoxicants".

My understanding is that marijuana is safer than tobacco at most levels of consumption, but that's not saying all that much.

Compared with alchohol, it depends on how much you're talking about. Alchohol in small amounts is harmless - I believe small amounts are actually good for the heart, although that may be apocryphal. In sufficiently large quantities it's clearly more dangerous than marijuana - I'm not sure it's physically possible to smoke enough marijuana of standard levels of purity to be as dangerous as drinking, say, an entire bottle of strong spirits at once - but at the levels many people drink at it's safer than all but negligable amounts of marijuana.

"Safer than tobacco"? Yes. "Safe"? No.

I think there's a strong case to be made that it's not dangerous enough to justify banning it, but I certainly won't be experimenting with it any time soon, and I would strongly advise other people not to.

dangerous AT ALL. Despite the OP's tedious post, the CREDIBLE evidence doesn't exist.

Here is a simple experiment: tell me what the lethal dosage is for an adult male for a) marijuana, and b) alcohol.

Here's a bit of help:
http://www.merck.com/mrkshared/mmanual/section15/chapter195/195b.jsp

vs.

http://www.merck.com/mrkshared/mmanual/section15/chapter195/195e.jsp

The difference between these two pages is startling.

Here is the downside of MJ, according to Merk:

"Critics of marijuana cite much scientific data regarding adverse effects, but most of the claims regarding severe biologic impact are unsubstantiated, even among relatively heavy users and in areas intensively investigated, such as immunologic and reproductive function. However, high-dose smokers of marijuana develop pulmonary symptoms (episodes of acute bronchitis, wheezing, coughing, and increased phlegm), and pulmonary function may be altered. This is manifested by large airway changes of unknown significance. Even daily smokers do not develop obstructive airway disease. Pulmonary carcinoma has not been reported in persons who smoke only marijuana, possibly because less smoke is inhaled than during cigarette smoking. However, biopsies of bronchial tissue sometimes show precancerous changes, so carcinoma may occur. In a few case-control studies, some tests detected diminished cognitive function in small samples of long-term high-dose users; this finding awaits confirmation. Studies in newborns have not found evidence of fetal harm due to maternal use of cannabis. Decreased fetal weight has been reported, but when all factors (eg, maternal alcohol and tobacco use) are accounted for, the effect on fetal weight disappears. -9-Tetrahydrocannabinol is secreted in breast milk. Although no harm to breastfed babies has been shown, breastfeeding mothers, like pregnant women, are advised to avoid using cannabis."

Our friend booze:

"Alcohol is absorbed into the blood, principally from the small intestine. It accumulates in blood because absorption is more rapid than oxidation and elimination. From 5 to 10% of ingested alcohol is excreted unchanged in urine, sweat, and expired air; the remainder is oxidized to CO2 and water at a rate of 5 to 10 mL/h (of absolute alcohol); each mL furnishes about 7 kcal. Chiefly, alcohol depresses the CNS: A blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 50 mg/dL (11 mmol/L) produces sedation or tranquility; 50 to 150 mg/dL (11 to 33 mmol/L), lack of coordination; 150 to 200 mg/dL (33 to 43 mmol/L), intoxication (delirium); and 300 to 400 mg/dL (65 to 87 mmol/L), unconsciousness (see also Table 170-2). BAC > 400 mg/dL (> 87 mmol/L) may be fatal. The legal BAC while driving is <= 100 mg/dL (<= 22 mmol/L) in most states, and intoxication is often defined as present at this level. Recent U.S. legislation threatens the loss of driving license to persons < 21 yr of age who have a BAC > 20 mg/dL (> 4.3 mmol/L). (In the USA, alcohol is prohibited to those < 21 yr.) BAC is rarely measured; it can be estimated from the amount in expired air.

The most common forms of specific organ damage in alcoholics are cirrhosis (see Ch. 40), peripheral neuropathy, brain damage, and cardiomyopathy, often accompanied by arrhythmias. Gastritis is common, and pancreatitis may also develop. Alcohol has direct hepatotoxicity, which may be aggravated by inadequate nutrition secondary to heavy alcohol intake. In some alcoholics, liver function is irreversibly impaired; inadequate glycogen storage and a tendency to develop hypoglycemia from the inability to mobilize glucose may result. Symptomatic hypoglycemia may result from inadequate food intake (see also Hypoglycemia in Ch. 13). Both the direct toxic action of alcohol and the accompanying nutritional deficiencies (particularly of thiamine) are considered responsible for the frequent peripheral nerve degeneration and brain damage. Alcoholic cardiomyopathy may develop after about 10 yr of heavy alcohol abuse and is attributed to a direct toxic effect of alcohol on the heart muscle, independent of nutritional deficiencies. It is manifested clinically as cardiomegaly and congestive heart failure and pathologically usually as diffuse myocardial fibrosis and hypertrophy with glycoprotein infiltration. Thiamine deficiency associated with alcohol abuse can also produce a cardiomyopathy (beriberi heart disease; see Thiamine Deficiency and Dependency in Ch. 3), with high output failure and cardiac conductive disturbances related to electrolyte imbalance. Excess alcohol intake can cause ECG abnormalities, arrhythmias, and sudden death in young alcoholics. Gastritis may be related to alcohol's effect on gastric secretions, which increase in volume and acidity while the pepsin content remains low."

You may agree that I am correct on the simple verifiable facts at any time. I will await your admission of total defeat on this subject.

You appear to be essentially confirming everything I said.

I said

:- Marijuana is not completly safe.
:- Marijuana is safer than tobacco
:- Small doses of alchohol are safer than small doses of marijuana
:- Large doses of alchohol are more dangerous than large doses of marijuana.

Your references confirm the first, second and fourth of those, and don't contradict the third - your information on alchohol is all refering to heavy usage.

A brief search using e.g. google will confirm that the balance of scientific opinion is heavily, and the balance of unbiased scientific opinion very heavily, that usage of cannabis can be a contributory factor to mental health problems (although there is some legitimate-looking debate as to whether it actually causes them from scratch, or just aggravates existing risks), whereas in small intake alchohol presents no measurable risks; as such, my third claim is also clearly true.

The facts on cannabis *aren't* simply verified yet; the evidence is strong enough to conclude that it's neither completely safe nor immensely dangerous, but the exact degree of risk is not known yet. We can put upper and lower bounds on that risk in light of the available evidence, though; the upper bound is arguably low enough to justify legalisation; the lower bound is high enough that I do not regard smoking cannabis as wise.

Incidentally, you'll probably get better results in conversation if you adopt a less combatitive tone, unless you're consciously trying to turn a discussion into a fight.

Please provide some evidence for that assertion.

When I did, I posted a long list of links giving evidence of the link between cannabis and schizophrenia (and a few disputing it, for completeness). I don't want to spend the time to recompile it, I'm afraid, but if your google-fu is better than mine you may be able to find the post on DU - words like my user name, marijuana, cannabis, schizophrenia and links were used - and go from there. If not, it shouldn't take much work with google to find evidence for yourself.

Is it your belief, as it is mine, that alchohol at the level of e.g. a glass of wine, once a week is harmless? If so, all that is necessary to prove my claim is that the evidence shows that even small amounts of marijuana present some increased risk of schizophrenia, albeit small, which the links I found last time I had this discussion demonstrate. If you don't believe that, you may well have grounds to dispute my claim - I'm not claiming that small amounts of marijuana are very dangerous - but I don't think you'd be right in not doing so.

There is CORRELATIVE data with regards to marijuana and schizophrenia, but no CAUSATIVE data, because that has never been shown to be the case.

If you assert that such research exists (it doesn't), you need to back up your claim (but you won't be able to, because no matter how good your research skills, there is no evidence that marijuana causes schizophrenia).

just because ice cream and swimming both occur in the summer.

Look, if you're not going to argue with me, as opposed to your mental image of the platonic anti-cannabis poster, there's nothing I can do.

What *I* as opposed to whoever it is you're thinking of said was

"usage of cannabis can be a contributory factor to mental health problems (although there is some legitimate-looking debate as to whether it actually causes them from scratch, or just aggravates existing risks)"

and

"marijuana presents some increased risk of schizophrenia".

It *hasn't* been conclusively proved that cannabis can cause schizophrenia.

There *is*, however, enough evidence that it can be an aggravating factor that I think "proved" is a reasonable shorthand for the degree of probability involved, and what you dismiss as "correlative data" makes me think it's much more likely than not that it can cause it, too, but I don't think "proved" is merited in that case.

On edit:

http://www.mth.kcl.ac.uk/~streater/cannabis.html
http://www.cannabis.net/cannschiz.html
http://www.ukcia.org/research/CausalAssociationBetweenCannabisAndPsychosis/correspondence.php

There *is* good evidence that cannabis aggravates and may well cause schizophrenia.

Your sources don't support that claim.

To save you the trouble of reading it, I'll quote.

"In <4> it is remarked that all three criteria have been demonstrated in some cases, and that cannabis intoxication is a cause of acute transient psychotic episodes in some people, and that it is a cause of recurrence of pre-existing psychotic symptoms. This was not just an association"

"Together, these observations are compatible with the idea that cannabis consumption could alter the last steps of brain maturation, leading to cognitive dysfunction and, in turn, enhancing the risk of psychosis."

I have been very careful not to claim that the evidence is conclusive, but to claim that there *isn't* evidence isn't true.

You've even admitted that there's a (strong, although that's my claim not yours) correlation between cannabis and schizophrenia yourself. That's circumstantial evidence of a causal relationship in and of itself; while obviously there could be any number of other explanations, it makes a causal relationship more likely given any other combination of circumstances, and is therefore evidence.

Unless I'm missing something in the translation..."it is said"

Yes. People can SAY anything. That doesn't mean it's true.

And, again, correlation IS NOT CAUSATION. It MIGHT be, but it isn't FOR A FACT.

Once more, with feeling.

I *didn't* say that it cannabis can cause schizophrenia "for a fact" ; I said that there "was evidence" that it did. Correlation *is* evidence, and as the first link I posted indicated, there is more than correlatory evidence that it is true.

No, it certainly isn't "for a fact"; I've been very, very careful indeed not to claim that it is because it's such a controversial area, which is why I'm slightly pissed off that you keep accusing me of doing so.

Low risk and no risk aren't the same thing. For example the following.

"A review of the literature suggests that the majority of cannabis users, who use the drug occasionally rather than on a daily basis, will not suffer any lasting physical or mental harm. Conversely, as with other ‘recreational’ drugs, there will be some who suffer adverse consequences from their use of cannabis. Some individuals who have psychotic thought tendencies might risk precipitating psychotic illness. Those who consume large doses of the drug on a regular basis are likely to have lower educational achievement and lower income, and may suffer physical damage to the airways. They also run a significant risk of becoming dependent upon continuing use of the drug. There is little evidence, however, that these adverse effects persist after drug use stops or that any direct cause and effect relationships are involved."

Source: Iversen, Leslie L., PhD, FRS, "Long-Term Effects of Exposure to Cannabis," Current Opinion in Pharmacology, Feb. 2005, Vol. 5, No. 1, p. 71.

They aren't even sure if one leads to the other or the other way around and it's a limited number of people it effects to start with. We've got prescription drugs on the market that show worse risks and last I heard some video games can cause seizures or epileptic fits because of the flashing patterns. Problem is that people like Ida take a line and draw it to an extreme that reality doesn't justify. In reality the measure should be more like the following. Step by step trial and study to see what really works rather than just assuming like we tend to do.

The Christchurch Press reported on March 22, 2005, that "The lead researcher in the Christchurch study, Professor David Fergusson, said the role of cannabis in psychosis was not sufficient on its own to guide legislation. 'The result suggests heavy use can result in adverse side-effects,' he said. 'That can occur with ( heavy use of ) any substance. It can occur with milk.' Fergusson's research, released this month, concluded that heavy cannabis smokers were 1.5 times more likely to suffer symptoms of psychosis that non-users. The study was the latest in several reports based on a cohort of about 1000 people born in Christchurch over a four-month period in 1977. An effective way to deal with cannabis use would be to incrementally reduce penalties and carefully evaluate its impact, Fergusson said. 'Reduce the penalty, like a parking fine. You could then monitor ( the impact ) after five or six years. If it did not change, you might want to take another step.'

Source: Bleakley, Louise, "NZ Study Used in UK Drug Review," The Press (Christchurch, New Zealand: March 22, 2005), from the web at http://www.mapinc.org/newscsdp/v05/n490/a08.html, last accessed March 28, 2005.

Problem isn't that it's safe or that it's unsafe, it's that some people with limited imagination assume they can simply make things go away when decades of trying to do exactly that has done nothing but to increase the death and the damage. But let's keep doing it, maybe it'll work this decade :eyes: In a futile attempt to get even with an inanimate object and our governments failed policies they back those policies so punish more innocent people and destroy more lives.

The fact is that most pot users, and most drug users of other types, quit all on their own. They might try it a time or few or they might use for a few years but most do move on and lead a perfectly normal life, unless they get arrested. The drugs aren't nearly as dangerous to them as our laws are, we know education works better and it's been proved but there's no money in that for a for profit prison system. That is mostly what this is about. Drug testing, prison, control, money. That's the side everyone with a vested interest and profit motive is on.

Here's a quick look at lifetime use vs regular us in a range of drugs. If we spent a few billion less on locking people up and shifted it to making treatment available for those who needed it maybe we could save more lives and destroy less through our own efforts. We've been doing this for nothing and it causes more harm than it stops, some in their self righteous rage just refuse to admit it so cost other families the lives of their loved ones too. I just wish they could see what it is they do.

Lifetime use
http://www.briancbennett.com/charts/nsduh/ever-used.htm

Past month use, daily would be considerably lower.
http://www.briancbennett.com/charts/nsduh/past-month.htm

were very age dependent, and I know that was something that stuck for me. For example, if you start doing it at fourteen, your risk for having it be a "problem" is higher, but if you start doing it at twenty, less of a problem. Of course, if you've got a fourteen year old who wants to "escape" their problems, odds are that there is other "high risk" behavior going on, which starts to complicate things -- which came first, the marijuana or the inappropriate sexual behavior? And how do you help a teenager grow up to be a productive member of society when they are "emotionally numb" thanks to marijuana?

To me, the two cases -- the fourteen year old and the twenty year old -- are vastly different because at some level, part of me believes that "adults" are responsible for themselves, and if bad things happen to them, they knew the risks, and they chose to take them. I get torqued when I find they were lied to ABOUT those risks (because they choose to believe the local drug dealer, or peers with no "true" knowledge of long term affects), but at the same time, I must confess to a "you are a grown up who made a bad decision" type of attitude.

The teenager, on the other hand, is a different case. I don't expect them to have either the maturity, or knowledge, or judgment to know when the "risk versus reward" equation is weighted too heavily in favor of "bad things happening," and I know that "recreational drugs" are not doing good things to their developing minds, especially with all of the studies that show problems with memory, learning, and lower inhabitation/awareness of risk taking. (Yes, yes, I'm sure there are exceptions to every rule, but with fifteen nieces and nephews, there isn't one I'd make responsible for that type of decision at that age.) If I don't think a fourteen year old is of an age to be condemned for murder, for example, then I sure as hell don't think they are old enough to be making informed decisions about altering their brain chemistry for recreation.

But I'm afraid that my personal, private opinion is still kind of in the "what an idiot!" category. Why risk doing something that will put you in jail -- is it that much FUN??? But I keep forgetting: the folks who get arrested all start believing one thing -- "I won't get caught."

People pretend to be non-biased but in truth we all are, we're shaped in the way we think by what we've experienced and seen in life and that has a real effect on how we view the world. I'm sorry you've seen the anger you have in this thread but you've also got to understand that it's not stupidity that drives a lot of people. It's a sense of right and wrong. As others have pointed out lots of things have been the law in the past such as slavery, laws against women owning property, or any number of other examples. It's the law just isn't an excuse when the law is wrong.

You've seen your side of the system and it's an ugly enough one, the damage drugs can do is real enough but we've just increased the death and damage with our policies. In the end drugs are nothing but tools that can be good or bad and it's us that's screwed in our approach to them. We need to drop the "lock them up" approach to drug control and treat it as a medical problem.

I had some experience with the system as a kid myself, not for drugs but for other petty reasons. If you want to understand the damage that's caused not by drugs but by our zero tolerance attitudes take a little time and read the following post. It's a lot more personal than I'm comfortable with but someone I respect a fair bit asked me to write it, figured it might do some good. Maybe it will.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=216&topic_id=3703&mesg_id=3722

It's not a matter of drugs are ok, it's a matter of what we're doing now isn't ok. The more time we spend shouting "drugs are bad!" the less time we're devoting to actually changing the system and saving lives. It's the system, not the drugs.

Prohibition is great! Without prohibition, how could I possibly maintain my lavish lifestyle? Why, I'd be just another produce distributor without the black market. Thank God for all the morality laws! Enabling criminal enterprise throughout history.

Please, remember the gangsters: keep prostitution, gambling, and drugs illegal. Our lifestyles depend upon it.

:rofl:

I just can't understand the total mental disconnect required for people to honestly believe that what we have now ($100's billions wasted on failed prohibition, huge criminal underground and all the misery that accompanies' it, more people imprisoned than any other country in the world, etc., etc.) is better than the horror of people that are using today continuing to use it without the threat of ruination. It just boggles my mind.

I guess this proves that we get the government that we deserve. :shrug:

I'll leave the drug argument to others (and I'm in agreement with what I've read from the others so far).

I only want to address your initial question: is illicit drug usage the reason that Republicans think we're idiots?

Don't you realize by now that Republicans will despsie you, no matter what? Do you really believe that Republicans think we're idiots? I don't think they believe that.

The fact that you put the blurb about republicans before anything else is telling. That you seem to place so much importance in what Republicans think of you, or of Democrats as a whole, is worthy of pity. They'll never accept you no matter what. So maybe you can make drugs go away, but you still won't be getting any love from the GOP. You should begin down the road that will one day allow you to live without seeking approval from a bunch of freepers. Incidentally, they're the ones who are idiots. I refer you to their voting record.

Good day.

after having read some of the posts in the other thread about how "safe" illegal drugs are, and that its okay for parents to share it with their children, at some level part of me just wonders if *my* personal issues -- the war, the corruption, the refusal to show respect for people of different sexual orientations, to provide decent medical care for everyone, etc. -- are occasionally blinding me to the fact that I'm hanging out with a bunch of people who are occasional idiots. (Obviously, there are times when I fit right in! :) )

There's an entire political spectrum in America, not just "Democrats" and "People who would never dream of voting Democrat".

Also remember that it's just as important not to stir up Republican turnout at elections as it is to get out the Democratic vote.

that it is in. The idea that if we just compromise enough they will come around and be reasonable, is bankrupt on the face of it and 30 years of failure is the proof.

NOW HEAR THIS! They hate you. They hate me. If we were to die right now they would view it as an "embetterment" (to use their "fearless leaders" terminology). They will never be satisfied with any compromise, for they have the certainty of the falsely righteous that theirs is the only way.

What proportion of American voters do you think would be pleased by your death?

I think this is a classic example of what I've heard caricatured as "two-tone perception syndrome".

You're using the word "they" a lot. I am always very sceptical of attempts to blame America's ills on any "they", rather than on the desires of the we, the electorate (or you, the electorate, given that I'm not American, to be exact), and I am doubly so when the "they" targeted isn't even identified.

I will point out that Bill Clinton, the most succesful Democratic leader in recent years, achieved his success with (I won't use "by" at this stage, although I think it's arguably justified) precisely the kind of thinking you are denigrating, while the more uncompromising Dukakis, Gore, Kerry etc did far less well.

Republicans think", it seemed pretty clear to me that the 'they' are the re:puke:s. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and chose to believe that you are just a little off today, rather than being willfully obtuse.

The proportion of amerikans that would be pleased or at least indifferent to the deaths of any and all Democrats is debatable, but is, I believe, within the 20% - 40% range.

I'm not even going to start on the 'success' of Bill Clinton. He was and remains a corporatist, albeit a very smooth corporatist, that accomplished nothing of substance for the people he purported to represent. His primary qualification was that he was slightly less heinous than the alternative.

BTW, both Kerry, and Gore before him, garnered more votes than Clinton ever did.

If you genuinely believe that 20-40% of all Americans would like to see all members of the Democratic party (and all Democratic voters?) die then I don't think we can have a meaningful discussion, I'm afraid, as our basic assumptions are too different.

It seems to me fairly clear that while there are a great many Americans who would like to see all Democrats suddenly become Republicans, the number who would press a button that would lead to their deaths if given the option is negligable.

You surely don't believe that 20-40% of Americans don't have at least one Democratic friend or relative whose death would grieve them?

but here in Jesus Land it is quite believable that there are that many that would push the button. The biggest complaint about * I hear is that he hasn't cracked down on us and/or nuked somebody yet.

Of course they wouldn't kill those they know, just the strangers. Somebody else will have to take care of those they know, but it's OK they'll be praying for their eventual salvation.

:eyes:

Drug warriors rarely vote democratic anyway.

have deeper problems than the pot. I bet they'd have some other excuse for their life being a mess is they didn't smoke pot.

Perhaps addiction and/or co-dependency are their problems, and it's just manifested through pot. Take away the pot and it would be something else, alcohol, prescription drugs.

It's not for you to judge what people choose to put in their own bodies, as long as it doesn't infringe on your rights, butt out.

Breaking the law in matters of war and peace are vastly different from consuming a plant put on this planet for a REASON, that was made illegal and kept illegal by chemical, oil, and pharmaceutical companies.

Learn the history behind why hemp was made illegal in 1937, how William Randolph Hearst and Lyndon LaRouche were instrumental in demonizing the plant that was declared the "Billion Dollar Crop" by Popular Mechanics. Learn the history, and you'll see why it was banned. We would have a very different looking nation today if hemp was never outlawed...

But really, echoing an earlier post, is this the most important thing to be talking about?

out of people's business. Quick! Let's disband the Environmental Protection Agency, the Food and Drug Administration (silly meat inspectors!), and any agency that does its best to keep the public safe, because, after all "its not for YOU to judge what people CHOOSE to put in their OWN BODIES!" (And if its okay to lie to them about the dangers of tobacco, why be considered about marijuana, cocaine, heroin, or other substance deemed "dangerous" by those crazy folks at the National Institute of Health!)

So, let's be clear, according to YOU: when drug use / abuse destroys lives, or makes someone poor, or homeless, or engage in desperate criminal behavior, I am supposed to "butt out" because it doesn't infringe on my rights. When I see someone being lied to about the health and safety effects of substances that are being used for "recreational" as opposed to sketchy medicinal reasons, so that unregulated drug dealers can make a profit, I'm supposed to "butt out." When people make disingenuous claims that "alcohol is worse, so pot is good", I'm supposed to "butt out."

In other words, I'm supposed to keep my mouth shut about lies ("its safe"), misinformation ("it doesn't hurt anybody"), and a smear campaign against law enforcement (members of whom make surprisingly little money while working to serve and protect, and usually die within ten years of retiring if they aren't killed on the job, all while doing their best TO SERVE AND PROTECT), because its not for ME to judge, even though MY TAXES are going to help clean up the messes created by the IDIOTS who decided not to believe that ADDICTIVE SUBSTANCES CAN CAUSE MAJOR PROBLEMS FOR SOME PEOPLE -- and YES, MARIJUANA CAN ALSO BE ADDICTIVE FOR "SOME" PEOPLE.

And by the way, just because stuff happened in 1937 doesn't make marijuana a good thing TODAY.

It was weird, but when I spent three or four years (back in the mid eighties) volunteering on a crisis line, not one person who called with drug issues ever talked about how great their life was going. Why I should have wasted my time trying to help when in reality I should have been "butting out" is kind of beyond me -- oh, wait a minute! I know!

Its because your argument is bullsh*t.

By the way, I don't think most people whose lives are going relatively well, whether they're on drugs or not, are going to call a crisis line.

we should outlaw meat because people have DIED simply eating hamburgers.

You're right. I have seen the light! And as another poster said, I doubt someone would call a crisis hotline to discuss the weather and how awesome things are.

On a personal note, i was a heavy drinker and smoker (cigs) before I tried pot - now I don't do much of anything, including the pot. you could say weed was a gateway to my sobriety yet somehow I don't go around telling people what to do or not to do. huh. crazy.

Which is why you see drug reformers running on third party tickets, such as Cliff Thornton, running for governor of Connecticut as a Green, Loretta Nall, running for governor of Alabama as a libertarian, and Kevin Zeese, running for US senator from Maryland as a Green/Populist/Libertarian.

People for whom reforming the hideously unjust drug laws are a major issue are supremely frustrated with both parties, although the Democrats are marginally better. NOTE: Being for reforming the drug laws doesn't make one a "druggy." Some Democrats, mainly black House members, are rather tired of seeing their constituents sent to prison for decades for minor crack offenses, and some of these same folks are working on sentencing reform. Rep. Maurice Hinchey (NY) offers amendments to the Justice Appropriations bill each year to bar the Justice Department and DEA from using federal funds to bust medical marijuana patients and providers in states where it is legal. It got 161 votes last time and comes up again next week. Rep. Barney Frank (MA)introduces marijuana bills, too.

But overall, it seems the Democrats are just as invested in the drug war as the Republicans, so you and your drug-hatred are still safe here.

than anyone.. Those are drugs are they not?????

ON EDIT:

Just cause they are legal, don't mean they get less stoned....

you're free not to do it.

and i'm free to break the law to consume it occasionally, in moderation after work & on the weekends just like i do alcohol without moving on to 'hard' drugs.

i know perhaps 500 people who have smoked marijuana, and only about 5 that have ever had a 'problem' with drugs - 2 of those were alcohol, 1 heroin, 1 coke, 1 crack. all are recovered & productive.

if you love someone, set them free.

decision.

Or not, because thinking is *really* hard work, and since "bad things" don't happen to people you know, everything is fine, right? :eyes:

and chill out.

But thank you for playing, because after having just completed an analysis of dozens of studies showing the dangers of that particular drug, the first thing I want to do is "fire up a fattie!"

:sarcasm:

But I agree, you could use a good hit.

Because there are THOUSANDS OF THEM...?

you can start with Pharmacological Reviews, volume 38, issue 1, p. 1-20

Wherein you'll find quotes such as "...compared with other licit substances such as alcohol, tobacco and caffeine marijuana does not pose greater risks."

You'll find, in that paper, references to some 185 other peer reviewed scientific papers saying the same thing. I'm sure you'll find more references there.

Seriously, you're on the wrong side of the science. You're over there with the Creationists, and global warming deniers crowd.

The world is round, too.

laughing "a fool head"

. Now step two is to process your family history
I hope you get closure which I think you need more that a joint, a drink or a rant.

examining my stance on the drug issue. Unfortunately, even though we all "sort of knew" my sister was dealing, none of us wanted to address the issue with her because it really felt like an invasion of privacy, or butting into her business or something, if you know what I mean. At some level, we all chose not to confront her behavior, regardless of whether or not we viewed it as self destructive so that we could keep "peace" in the family. It was cowardly of me, but honestly, I don't think she would have changed her behavior just to have a good relationship with me -- the world, after all, revolved solely around her, and her wants/needs.

Then I found out she was supplying minors -- specifically, her daughter's boyfriend the day AFTER he got out of rehab. My jaw was on the floor -- she was in her late thirties, he was sixteen fricking years old, his parents had just spent tens of thousands of dollars to help him get "clean", and my stupid ass sister was doing drugs with him / supplying him!

I will never be able to express the level of disgust and disappointment I felt when I learned about her behavior. She had always been someone with problems, and had ALWAYS made what I deemed to be a "mistake" in trying to be "a friend / peer" with her children, instead of their mother, but that moment changed our relationship forever. While I could look the other way when she was "dealing" to adults, "dealing to minors" was one step over my tolerance line.

Oddly enough, she refused to have alcohol at her children's graduation parties, because it would have put her at risk of getting sued!

Anyway, I did everything I could to alert appropriate authorities to the fact she was endangering other people's children, but it did no good, and that was sad....Later, I talked with law enforcement professionals, prosecutors, child welfare advocates, drug counselors, and parents who were dealing with drug use among the teen population. NONE OF THEM felt it was "harmless" and most were completely frustrated.

After I discovered my niece was supporting her heroin habit as a prostitute (which coincided with attending the funeral of an eighteen year a few weeks after Andy's funeral last year), I tried to come up with a good way for parents to address the issues. At some level, it comforts me to know that the tragedy my sister caused (the boyfriend has been in and out of jail multiple times, and has been exposed to life threatening diseases due to HIS heroin use) might someday be of benefit to others, if it can help even one other person.

As for the grown ups who don't want ot be helped -- well, its a step one, step two, situation. And I'm getting closer to peace with my sister's story every day. Unfortunately, its a common one; it isn't even all that special, because she's just like millions of other idiots out there right now....:(

and he enjoyed his marijuana quite a bit.

But I'm sure he never ever thought about it, you know, 'cuz he was just a pot head and thinking is really hard work. :sarcasm:

http://frankdiscussion.netfirms.com/who_celebtokers.html


hey, George Washington smoked it!

it was informed, i am aware of the history of hemp in america, the drawbacks of its use (torpor, cancer, jail) & i accept them. everything is most definitely not fine; i am using my personal experience to point out that 'bad things' comprise a relative minority of marijuana user's experiences. since i have a JOB, i don't relly feel researching links just because you're trying to pick a fight.

i am a successful professional with an advanced degree. i do not force, or encourage others, including my stepchildren, to use marijuana. i am, however, realistic with them about the main danger that they face in using it: police.

if marijuana is to remain illegal, then i advocate illegalization of tobacco & a return to prohibition. the state should be consistent in its approach to all recreationally ingested mind altering substances.

presumably respect you, and their mother doesn't mind your drug use, what can one truly say? You know what you are doing, and you believe that it will not cause any harm to those around you. I am told prayer works wonders in a similar fashion.

Good luck with that, and if you turn out to be wrong (and those kids who admire/respect you end up having problems because they try to emulate you), I hope you have the courage to face up to your participation in their problems.

I don't ill wish you on this topic. I just don't think things are going to be as fine as you think, but hey! I could be wrong. :shrug:

I'm betting on you being wrong.

to argue with the folks who do, because its kind of pointless. Facts aren't going to change the minds of people who are already accepting that they are doing an illegal behavior because it feels good. And please don't pretend we're talking about purported medical use, because more people are using it for "recreation" on this thread than any claims of glaucoma can account for.

Plus, we're liberals -- I think we live to be contrary! :)

:evilgrin:

Who uses that anymore? That's like a parody of PSA's from the eighties.

i'm so 80's.

I mean, come on, two DORKY AS HELL 11-year-olds. The good kid is at his locker and the bad kid (evidenced by his leather jacket) walks up to the good kid and tries to give him some perfectly pre-rolled joints. I mean, seriously, what dealer actually lovingly prepares his wares like that? "Good kid" declines and "Bad Kid with the Leather Jacket" calls him a chicken and starts clucking. Now wait, what witty retort do we have for "Bad Kid with the Leather Jacket?"

"I'm not a chicken. You're a TURKEY!"

Holy shit! There is nothing worse than being called a TURKEY. Everyone knows that turkeys are lower than chickens. As if we're not already saying, "DUDE, WHAT THE FUCK?!?!" it then cuts to the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles watching this whole thing happening on tv. They then tell us that marijuana is bad and that we should call drug dealers turkeys, all the while sounding stoned.

Now if this commercial wasn't somehow covertly made by a stoner to amuse stoners than I don't know what is.

I also enjoyed the one where the kids smoke pot and then take the loaded gun out of his father's unlocked desk drawer and shoots his friend. Now, isn't that more of a gun control PSA. I mean, I consider the unlocked loaded gun in a drawer where kids can get it, way more dangerous than pot. Also, who wants to play with a gun when they're stoned? I think guns are fun toys. They hold no interest though when I'm stoned.

great post! :rofl:

http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2733347?htv=12

A few corrections on my post. The "good kid" actually appears to be about 8. The ninja turtles are on the tv talking to a classroom of kids and one of them suggests to get a pizza in lieu of smoking pot. Personally, I feel pizza is a good thing to get after you've smoked your pot.

And I have found more!!!!

Here PeeWee Herman tells us crack is dead wrong.
:rofl:

I'll never do drugs again now that The Golden Girls have told me not to.

I'm sad to know that my homestate so cheesily told me Crack is whack!

but that was definitely a classic :rofl:

And somehow I missed the golden girls the first time around. My god, the 80s :shrug: ...

:rofl:

:rofl:

Oh and here's one more.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPgpYux8HJQ

Apparently the message is...don't eat some acid and then go eat a hot dog.

If you start smoking heavily at 15, and make a life choice out of it, chances are you will still be smoking it at 35 and be no further ahead than you were at 15, and probably still living with your parents (if they'll have you). They call it "dope" for good reason.

Sure, there have been some extraordinary writers and artists that used pot and other drugs, but most people are not able to lead the artist lifestyle and make enough to prosper and thrive. A few others may be able to indulge recreationally as do some folks with alcohol, but a pothead can ruin his life just as fast as an alcoholic, and being in proximity to that drug will put you in contact with heavier drugs - a lot of dealers carry pot, coke, ecstacy, acid, and anything they can make a buck on.

I followed these arguments as well, and ranged between laughter/horror at what some folks espouse - such as it being OK for parents to give pot to their kids (better than cigarettes!), people who would rather "have them party at home than somewhere else," and others who seem to think marijuana is God's gift to the human race instead of a mind altering weed that kills your motivation to work.

cigs & cofee, it's not so bad. LOL

IDA: You have every right to loathe pot, and to express your loathing. It's your choice. Period.

I collected vices like baseball cards. Everyone needs one or two, but smoking a lot of pot comes with a heavy and immediate price.

heavy users find it difficult to believe that moderate & light users don't have a problem.

willpower & discipline are easier when pot is $300/ounce or more.

What would make pot cost that much?

I don't at all deny that many folks could handle pot the way that many handle alcohol. But does society risk anything by adding a new legal intoxicant? Alcoholism has been very costly to our culture, and legal pot would bring about a whole new generation of issues.

1. quality
2. illegality

see my post #51 above wherein i advocate making alcohol illegal again, along with tobacco.

and hell, throw in firearms. that ought to get this thread cooking!

Pot makes people a lot more cheerful and non-threatening than booze does. Never happen, though.

Is the worst that can be said about it that it reduces work motivation? I hope that TV and ESPN.com is the next to be outlawed on that basis.

I'm 44. I haven't smoked pot in 25 years. I hope that my teen sons don't start, but to be frank, I'm much more concerned about the really powerful substances that they and their peers are being given to deal with autism and ADHD.

I mean, it's no more dangerous than alcohol in terms of ruining a day or a life, and probably a whole lot cleaner than the drunken messes you see wandering around the streets. But do we really need society to embrace another mind altering substance that ruins as many lives as it enhances? What's to be gained?

1) it would legalize a drug that is inexpensive and proven effective in fighting nausea caused by chemotherapy and reduces the pain of glaucoma.
2) it would save billions in our ineffective war on drugs.
3) I don't see the widespread ruin that has resulted from pot use, but I do know a lot of anecdotal evidence illustrating the ruin that has resulted from disproportionate law enforcement.

I see the harm from enforcement of this prohibition as greater than the harm of its use. The public harm that comes from tobacco is orders of magnitude worse, but society still seems able to deal with it.

the politicians don't outlaw wars. The politicians don't worry about what war does to kids, as much as they worry about pot.

Bob Dole pushes drugs on TV. Reagan and Bush Sr. were bringing coke into the US and selling it to buy weapons to kill kids overseas with.

There are far worse things than pot out there waiting to pounce on your kids. They even let some of the pushers into the schools every day! They call them recruiters but what they are pushing is some super deadly stuff!

Yes, it would be worse to shoot a person than to give him pot. That doesn't mean that either are good.

When you get blown away on pot, you can come back in a few hours! There is BAD and then there is WORSE!

It has nothing to do with fishin' :hi: or fishes...

As an avid THC supporter, you non-users make me laugh endlessly. Well, guess I better go find a job. :rofl:

When I see booze disappear from the super market shelves, then I'll start paying attention. Until then, this is all a political movement of ignorance.

Heaps of it.

The end result - it cost me a lot of money (for many years I had no savings at all), and my peers that started in the same place I did got a pretty large headstart on me. If things are working out differently for you, then well done, but mine is a common story. I'm glad I woke up.

I used to be a pretty heavy advocate for legalization, as well. Most heavy pot users are, because they try to justify their non-performance as being caused by non-smoker's ignorance. It's sad.

What I find sad is that everyone wants to blame the drug and no one wants to take responsibility for their decisions. It wasn't the drug that made you lose all that money, it was your irresponsibility to think clearly or use common sense. I went through the same thing. However, once I started taking responsibility for my actions, well everything changed and I gained control over my impulsive side. Maybe I am different, but I doubt it.

on edit: took a different action.

to smoke a little pot after graduating with a 3.85 GPA, 27 on the ACT, both NHS cords, and no arrest record, only to be tossed out into the rain when my parents found out I was gay?

Do I have your permission to light up a joint after they yanked my college education out from under my feet and left me with student loans, but nothing to show for it?

My point it, SOMETIMES people's failures aren't related to marijuana use, even when they ARE smoking pot once in a while.

Jesus CHRIST, you anti-druggers are fucking judgemental as all hell....

Drugs are bad, mmmkay?

You are just a regular citizen, a little stupider than some, a little smarter than others.
It makes you ill qualified to be my judge, than you. The law is wrong, it is against human
liberty and it is incumbent upon all persons who feel the law is wrong, to break it as much
as they feel is right. The people who make the laws, the corporate states of prison/police state
are incapable of recognizing that the externalities of their own laws have destroyed their
own cities and corrupted the economies of all their southern neighboring nations for decades.

And you and the white racists who run the USA can preach about how the laws are just.
http://www.socialistaction.org/news/199904/prison.html

So you want to blow your corporatist lies religion on the surface of the planet, go ahead,
but if you want to share common ground with a voter who's vote will count as much as yours in
the next poll, and 32,000,000 other cannabis smoking voters, then grow some respect.

IF you wanted to educate yourself as much as you want to cleanse the party, you'd read:
"Why our drugs laws have failed and what we can do about it." Your sources are not experts
on the drugs war, they are experts on medical studies on uncontrolled substances.
http://www.abebooks.co.uk/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=686796506&searchurl=sts%3Dt%26y%3D0%26tn%3Dwhy%2Bour%2Bdrugs%2Blaws%2Bhave%2Bfailed%2Band%2Bwhat%2Bwe%2Bcan%2Bdo%2Babout%2B%2Bit%26x%3D0%26sortby%3D3

You claim to respect science, yet you present scientific studies on a drug that is unknown, that
comes in hundreds of varieties, and consumption regimes that to claim any conclusive study of it is
at best laughable, and when big-pharma universities that are bought as much as the congress is, to
lie professionally, then you are just repeating the rhetoric of the racist institutins of the war
state, and furthering their propaganda objectives of tearing the left apart, why don't you go
attack some veterans, or some poor people claiming they "have a choice" and you'd just drop it...
... all for the log in thine own eye.

The state has degenerated beyond civil reform. It hopefully will go bankrupt without a war. When you
democratic centrists get back in power, you can continue your war on the pottheads, but until then,
you should respect your coalition voters. When the law is murder theft and state crime, what law.

Go arrest bush with your vengence and get thee after a criminal.

Harvard, Cornell, Columbia -- bastions of CONSERVATISM, and no one who really cares about the effects of marijuana on their patients?

:eyes:

Harvard can be full of shit if somebody pays them enough.

Look at George Bush.

Personal experiences don't count, remember -- all the "bad" things that have happened to people are to be ignored, which means all of the good ones, too!

(I especially like how anyone who doesn't agree with you -- including the British Medical Association -- can't be trusted! Just because the people doing these studies are working with our most vulnerable patients is NO REASON for them to actually be telling -- gasp! -- the truth!)

Its illegal to provide actual amounts, and to know what was in the drug. So you're basing your science
on studies of people based on how much they did not lie to you, about a drug that is untested in unknown
quantities, a mixture of hundreds of chemicals.

If anyone claimed a conclusive study even from those medically =bought= private institutions, that
did not have any control of the actual drug being administered, and had only a fuzzy idea of a general
sorta ballpark of what drug was administered, the conclusive nature of the studies would be laughted
out of the scientific community.

Your brand of science is to use facts as a weapon to betray truth. The truth is that you belive
yourself to be superior to persons here because you are brainwashed.

There are two recent reviews of the literature on marijuana I suggest you check out:

"Understanding Marijuana: A New Look at the Scientific Evidence," by Dr. Mitchell Earleywine (2002, Oxford University Press)

"Marijuana Myths, Marijuana Facts: A Review of the Scientific Evidence," by Drs. Lynn Zimmer and John Morgan (1997, the Lindesmith Center)

But I think it would be much more useful to quit arguing that marijuana is "bad" and instead start talking about what the public response should be.

You have no verifiable credible peer reviewed scientific evidence in yoru links.

...than see people snorting coke or doing heroin in the streets. If you want to legalize pot, there's room for debate, but don't tell me that coke and such shouldn't be as illegal as taking medical painkillers without a prescription.

to registered users, who are provided with, nay, monitored for health & moderation.

there has to be a better solution that the prison industrial complex.

My objective, is to remove the social stigma of addiction and its issues to the world of treatment,
religion, and civil discourse, and to remove the criminal treatment so that we can care for our
own youths.

The reason those drugs are out there, and cheap, coke and smack, is because they are illegal. If they
were legal and sold to adults like whisky, there would be no overdose deaths, no drugs gangs running
the streets, no 2 miillions in prison, no crime schools training the youth to tax society permanently
run by the state for our own pain.

If it were legal, then junkies would line up with the wino's and other addicts for their fix, not
costing the taxpayer anything, all without the crime rotting away our cities.

I highly recommend that book from that previous post, if you want to learn about the judicial
issues behind the failure of the drugs war, but i agree with the author of that book, that the
purpose of legallization is not to spread drugs use, quite the contrary, it is a way to keep the
social cost of drugs at a minimum, whilst providing enough money left over for universal healthcare.

I frankly wish you'd learn more about it, because its people who talk like you do, who are
the most important that become educated on the ways those from the trenches "know" how to fix,
and what is really wrong, at the root of this fool war.

Asgaya Dihi is better at factual argument on this subject. I am rather a libertarian, and pot has
taught me not to be a republican, over a lifetime, and if it cured me of republicanism, it can't be all bad. :-)

The "failed drug war" of which you are so enamored costs $40 billion a year in state and federal funds. It has resulted in 500,000 Americans being imprisoned on any given day for non-violent drug crimes. It has resulted in an encroaching police state in the US. It has shredded the Fourth Amendment. It has generated all kinds of violence.

All of this so you can stop someone from snorting coke? And you still can't stop them, can you?

Ponder this: The criminal law is a mighty narrow fulcrum with which to try to make masses of people change their drug consumption habits.

Sorry, dude: Fuck the drug war, and fuck anyone who supports it.

streets. Plus billions wasted on law enforcement that could be better served in treatment, and prisons full of people who are no danger to anybody.

Sounds like you're a part of the drug problem, not the solution.

I could probably come up with similar study results. You are aware, aren't you, that the US government has dreadfully distorted research findings on marijuana by shaping research funding so that only studies looking for something "bad" are funded?

But as I said in an earlier thread, I am willing to concede that marijuana is not necessarily harmless. You don't want to smoke it? Fine. But stay the fuck out of MY life.

Bottom line: All currently illicit substances should be regulated instead of banned--because banning them doesn't work (as you should well know). Once we destroy drug prohibition and the harms it generates, we can concentrate on addressing the harms, both personal and social, that can result from drug abuse.

I don't use them, but I think drugs should be legalized and regulated. :shrug:

not "suite"

So, how do you feel about alcohol? It was illegal once.

The occasional glass of wine (I like raspberry), and some Baileys during special occasions. Do I mind other people doing it? No, as long as they behave in a sane, sensible fashion (no violence, no driving, etc.).

I am also aware that people who ABUSE IT have destroyed countless lives, and that drinking irresponsibly can result in death.

I used to date a recovering alcoholic. He was a good man, who is going on twenty years sober now, and I'm proud of what he's done. Would I take alcohol away from "everyone" because of his problem? No. Would I prosecute the hell out an irresponsible drunk who killed and/or injured someone? Yup. If I could magically wave my hand, and put all of the children who are being victimized by irresponsible alcoholic parents "somewhere safe", would I do it? Yes, my Goddess complex would find that to be acceptable (except I'd probably use my powers to "un-alcoholic them", but you get the idea) --

But do I have any respect for those who indulged in it while it was illegal? No.

The question (circling back to marijuana) is really a two fold one: Is Marijuana safe? (Answer: For some people, yes, for others, no.) Should it be legally available? Probably, but in a restricted way, similar to alcohol and cigarettes. Would I let people imbibe in my home, as a gracious hostess? Not a chance. Then again, people don't smoke cigarettes in my home, either, and those are legal. Do I think the over hyped "War on Drugs" is a success? NO WAY! But I find people who "pretend" that there are no "dangers" associated with marijuana and other illegal drugs to be ... offensive to my sense of truth, just like I find people who play dumb about the dangers of alcohol to be "bad" --

At some level, when you deride the "dangers" of something, you tell people that caution and responsibility don't have to be adhered to, and that level of "misleading" just annoys the shit out of me! :)