Drugs: Legalise or Prohibit?

[ballen0351]

Really? You're the police officer and expert, so I'm asking for information here. Can you point to any cases of actual death from marijuana?

I mean death from MJ, like a cocaine overdose or the way people die from heroin withdrawal. Not dying from stupidity while stoned - like in a vehicle accident or falling off a mountain while hiking on MJ.

Seriously, I'm curious here. Not picking a fight.

Im far from an expert.
Here are 3 case studies backed up by autopsys
http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/sourcefiles/MJstrokes.pdf

 

[Archangel M]

1. Wouldn't that exacerbate the issue? If your concern is personally picking up the tab, then making it easier for the insurance company refuse just puts most medical expenses directly on the public tab. Families can't afford to pay that out, so bankruptcy and bailouts reach back into our pockets.

2. Insurance already won't pay out for DWI or anything else where you're hurt while committing a crime.

No. You wind up loosing your house, having wages garnished and or tax returns seized. Insurance isn't automatically denied in a DWI injury here. Thats a new one to me.

This way you get to choose to wear or not, but you wind up paying for your decision if it bites you in the ***.

 

[Tez3]

Really? You're the police officer and expert, so I'm asking for information here. Can you point to any cases of actual death from marijuana?

I mean death from MJ, like a cocaine overdose or the way people die from heroin withdrawal. Not dying from stupidity while stoned - like in a vehicle accident or falling off a mountain while hiking on MJ.

Seriously, I'm curious here. Not picking a fight.

There is a case in Eire where the coroner stated that the deceased, a chap called Paul Byrne, died from heart failure caused by using marijuana. the wife has challenged this saying her husband had an ongoing medical condition he was self medicating with marijuana.


What if you kill someone because you weren't wearing a seatbelt? As in being sat in the back of a car and shooting forward at a rapid rate of knots?

 

[granfire]

There is a case in Eire where the coroner stated that the deceased, a chap called Paul Byrne, died from heart failure caused by using marijuana. the wife has challenged this saying her husband had an ongoing medical condition he was self medicating with marijuana.


What if you kill someone because you weren't wearing a seatbelt? As in being sat in the back of a car and shooting forward at a rapid rate of knots?

I would assume that you would not come out smelling like a rose after impact either...but it is a valid question.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I've seen you argue in one thread that MJ should be illegal because the majority wishes it, and then when later asked whether you'd support it if the majority was in favor, you point out that the majority isn't always right.

That's a perfect example! You're right, I have said exactly that.

I do argue that marijuana should be illegal because that is the will of the majority and prohibiting it does not infringe on anyone's civil rights. That's how our government works and how it ought to work. Even when I don't like the result.

I also stated my opinion - which is that despite the will of the majority, I won't ever be in favor of legalization.

However, what this means is this; if marijuana becomes legal for recreational use because the majority wishes it to be that way, I will of course respect the rule of law. I won't like it and I won't agree with it, but will respect that the people have spoken. I am allowed to agree with the logic of the situation and still not like it. That's life, eh?

I have also said that the people are booger-eatin' morons, and I stand by that, too. We're often driven by illogical passions, we can be mean and selfish, and we tend to make stupid self-serving laws that hasten our own destruction. One of the drawbacks to a true representative democracy; we have the power to do ourselves in by being stupid. It is only our constitutional framework that slows down our whirlwind of self-destruction.

 

[Steve]

Per the NIDA site
Long-term marijuana use can lead to addiction; that is, people have difficulty controlling their drug use and cannot stop even though it interferes with many aspects of their lives. It is estimated that 9 percent of people who use marijuana will become dependent on it. The number goes up to about 1 in 6 in those who start using young (in their teens) and to 25-50 percent among daily users. Moreover, a study of over 300 fraternal and identical twin pairs found that the twin who had used marijuana before the age of 17 had elevated rates of other drug use and drug problems later on, compared with their twin who did not use before age 17.
Marijuana accounted for 4.2 million of the estimated 7 million Americans dependent on or abusing illicit drugs. In 2008, approximately 15 percent of people entering drug abuse treatment programs reported marijuana as their primary drug of abuse; 61 percent of those were under age 15,

Okay. First, no one's arguing that marijuana use isn't pervasive. Rather, I think it's pretty obvious that its use IS pervasive, to the tune of over 45% of people in the USA 12 or older have used it, and in 2009, according to the Fed, we're looking at over 16.7 million "past month" users. That's a lot of people being criminalized.

Second, I think it's really odd that you would change a critical word in the quote. "Research has shown that approximately 9% of people who used marijuana may become dependent. The risk of addiction goes up to about 1 in 6 among those who start using as adolescents, and 25-50% of daily users." Huh. I guess that wasn't definitive enough for you. A little dishonest, though. http://www.drugabuse.gov/tib/marijuana.html Once again, the language is inconclusive. Is it good for you? Clearly not. Is it anything at all resembling meth? No. Not even close.

Finally, looking at the addiction rates, alcohol has an addiction rate of about 5% of the total population of drinking age Americans. That's about 1 in every 20 people... not just people who drink. All people in the USA. The rate of people who abuse alcohol is much higher, classified as alcohol abuse, but not addiction.

Research has shown that marijuana's negative effects on attention, memory, and learning can last for days or weeks after the acute effects of the drug wear off (Schweinsburg et al. 2008).

And again, no one's saying that it's a vitamin. The point isn't that we should legalize it because it's a wonder drug. The argument is that usage is already pervasive and that the prohibition itself is causing more problems than the substance, much as the prohibition of alcohol caused more problems than it solved.

Per C.E.D.A.R.S research report:
For 2002 there were a total of 157 deaths in the 31 Metro areas in which Marijuana is the only drug reported

Here a 3 medical case studies where people have died from using marijana its called cerebellar infarction.
http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/sourcefiles/MJstrokes.pdf

At what point does something become a medical exception? Serious question. For example, I train in BJJ, and a carotid choke is considered an extremely safe submission. Most people do just fine, but there are a few for whom it's potentially fatal. The number is statistically so small that it's considered more of an act of god than a legitimate risk. I don't think I'm being clear. I don't mean to dismiss the deaths or the risk. The point is, at what point is something so unlikely that it's not a real risk. Like being struck by lightning. Potentially lethal, but not something that is at all likely.

 

[Steve]

That's a perfect example! You're right, I have said exactly that.

I do argue that marijuana should be illegal because that is the will of the majority and prohibiting it does not infringe on anyone's civil rights. That's how our government works and how it ought to work. Even when I don't like the result.

I also stated my opinion - which is that despite the will of the majority, I won't ever be in favor of legalization.

However, what this means is this; if marijuana becomes legal for recreational use because the majority wishes it to be that way, I will of course respect the rule of law. I won't like it and I won't agree with it, but will respect that the people have spoken. I am allowed to agree with the logic of the situation and still not like it. That's life, eh?

I have also said that the people are booger-eatin' morons, and I stand by that, too. We're often driven by illogical passions, we can be mean and selfish, and we tend to make stupid self-serving laws that hasten our own destruction. One of the drawbacks to a true representative democracy; we have the power to do ourselves in by being stupid. It is only our constitutional framework that slows down our whirlwind of self-destruction.

I think I understand better now. Thanks. I hope that you'll be very clear to distinguish between two. The problem for me is that you kind of flip back and forth between arguing a hypothetical because it conveniently supports your position and arguing what you really believe to be true because it supports your position. I'm not always perceptive enough to tell the difference, and honestly, if you say X supports Y and also Z supports Y, I'm going to presume that you believe both X and Z to be consistent and true.

 

[ballen0351]

There is also a lot of evidence to suggest that MJ is used to self medicate pre-existing mental illness. In other words, it's a cause/effect question. I brought up in a previous thread on the same subject the NFL running back, Ricky Williams. He had an anxiety disorder that he self medicated with MJ. It eventually got him kicked out of the NFL, but had he taken the Paxil as prescribed (which reportedly involved many undesirable side effects for him) he would have been fine. A sad case, really.

And Snoop Dog says he smokes it because he has migraines.
Just because I can make up a problem to justify why I do something don’t make it right.

 

[ballen0351]

Okay. First, no one's arguing that marijuana use isn't pervasive. Rather, I think it's pretty obvious that its use IS pervasive, to the tune of over 45% of people in the USA 12 or older have used it, and in 2009, according to the Fed, we're looking at over 16.7 million "past month" users. That's a lot of people being criminalized.

Second, I think it's really odd that you would change a critical word in the quote. "Research has shown that approximately 9% of people who used marijuana may become dependent. The risk of addiction goes up to about 1 in 6 among those who start using as adolescents, and 25-50% of daily users." Huh. I guess that wasn't definitive enough for you. A little dishonest, though. http://www.drugabuse.gov/tib/marijuana.html Once again, the language is inconclusive. Is it good for you? Clearly not. Is it anything at all resembling meth? No. Not even close.

Finally, looking at the addiction rates, alcohol has an addiction rate of about 5% of the total population of drinking age Americans. That's about 1 in every 20 people... not just people who drink. All people in the USA. The rate of people who abuse alcohol is much higher, classified as alcohol abuse, but not addiction.

And again, no one's saying that it's a vitamin. The point isn't that we should legalize it because it's a wonder drug. The argument is that usage is already pervasive and that the prohibition itself is causing more problems than the substance, much as the prohibition of alcohol caused more problems than it solved.
At what point does something become a medical exception? Serious question. For example, I train in BJJ, and a carotid choke is considered an extremely safe submission. Most people do just fine, but there are a few for whom it's potentially fatal. The number is statistically so small that it's considered more of an act of god than a legitimate risk. I don't think I'm being clear. I don't mean to dismiss the deaths or the risk. The point is, at what point is something so unlikely that it's not a real risk. Like being struck by lightning. Potentially lethal, but not something that is at all likely.

If 16.7 million people break the law then they are criminals. MIllions of people speed everyday should we get rid of traffic laws?

I didnt change any words that was cut and pasted directly from the NIDA web page. There was no dishonesty. Click the link on the top left that says Marijuana Research Report(Updated) on the left click the like Is Marijuana Addictive?
1st paragraph It is estimated that 9 percent of people who use marijuana will become dependent on it.
http://www.nida.nih.gov/NIDAHome.html

Medical exception? That was just 1 research paper. There are more out there. But the initial claim was "nobody has ever OD and died from weed" Thats a false and outdated statement. Look at the CEDAR report over 100 deaths in just 31 cities in just 2002. As Marijuana get even more potent that number will climb. Marijuana today is not the Marijuana you smoked as a kid. Its 5 to 10 times stronger then it was even in the 80's and 90's. There are strains coming out of Canada that can be traded straight up in Miami pound for pound for cocaine.

 

[Archangel M]

http://www.worldandi.com/subscribers/feature_detail.asp?num=24834

 

[Steve]

And Snoop Dog says he smokes it because he has migraines.
Just because I can make up a problem to justify why I do something don’t make it right.

Sometimes, it would be a good idea to do a quick google search before saying something.

 

[ballen0351]

Sometimes, it would be a good idea to do a quick google search before saying something.

if there is one thing I like more then politics it's football. I also am a huge texas fan and followed ricky williams since his longhorn days. He had no trouble in texas being in front of crowds. And if I remember right the first time he popped on a test he did with his kicker or punter because they would party. It was not until later he came up with this disorder as a reason why he smoked up.


oh and if your talking about snoop dog since I can't tell by your snide comment but he was on Howard stern and said he had uhh migraines so he got his weed card from a doc.

 

[Steve]

If 16.7 million people break the law then they are criminals. MIllions of people speed everyday should we get rid of traffic laws?

That's an excellent question. A few years back now, when the national law was 55mph, the States looked at how many people were speeding. They didn't eliminate laws, but they raised the speed limit in many stretches of the highways and interstates.

If everyone jaywalks at the same spot, you could either ticket everyone or put a crosswalk there. I guess which would be the best course of action depends upon your own personal stake in the race.

Medical exception? That was just 1 research paper. There are more out there. But the initial claim was "nobody has ever OD and died from weed" Thats a false and outdated statement. Look at the CEDAR report over 100 deaths in just 31 cities in just 2002. As Marijuana get even more potent that number will climb. Marijuana today is not the Marijuana you smoked as a kid. Its 5 to 10 times stronger then it was even in the 80's and 90's. There are strains coming out of Canada that can be traded straight up in Miami pound for pound for cocaine.

This is another great point in favor of legalization. Were weed legal, it would be regulated. one of the biggest problems now is that weed often isn't just weed. Good point, and I'd call this another really good reason to legalize and regulate. You'd know that if you buy Phillip Morris doobs, you'd be getting the same thing each time. Just like you know that if you drink a silver bullet, you've got a light beer that's about 4 or 5% alc by volume and you're not going to be drinking something that's 80 proof.

The medical exception thing is a genuine question. I just wonder what the cut off is... 3 out of... how many? I mean, at what point are we looking at unfortunate flooks more closely related to an allergy than a legit medical threat? Kind of like the guy who dies from a peanut allergy.

 

[ballen0351]

actually speedlimits were changed to 55 to save oil in the 70's by the feds. Then in 1995 the feds got rid of the law and returned the power back to the states it had nothing to do with people speeding

 

[Bill Mattocks]

actually speedlimits were changed to 55 to save oil in the 70's by the feds. Then in 1995 the feds got rid of the law and returned the power back to the states it had nothing to do with people speeding

The whole thing was a bit of funny business by the federal government. President Nixon signed the bill into law, but there is and was no national speed limit; the federal government cannot set speed limits in the states, they haven't the authority. What they could (and did) do was to deny states transportation funding unless they complied and passed state laws limiting the speed limit to 55mph.

It was intended to save gasoline during the 'fuel crisis' of the early 1970's. It was also noted that lives were saved when people slowed down.

Over time, as gas prices came back down (and actually became available again, some of us remember rationing and gas stations being out of gasoline entirely), states began to rebel and push back. Some raised their speed limits and dared the feds to cut off their road funds.

The law was eventually repealed. However, it did not 'return power to the states' because it never had power over the states. What it did was to stop holding the stick of 'no road funds for you guys' over the heads of the states and let them do as they wished. Another blow for state sovereignty.

Some studies have noted that not much gas was saved and that the predicted 'blood on the highways' when the speed limits went up didn't happen. Much of the lack of predicted negative impact may have had to do with other circumstances, such as safer cars, more use of seatbelts, the introduction of shoulder belts and airbags, more emphasis on interdicting DUI drivers, and better roads.

 

[Steve]

actually speedlimits were changed to 55 to save oil in the 70's by the feds. Then in 1995 the feds got rid of the law and returned the power back to the states it had nothing to do with people speeding

Okay. You said that these 16.7 million people are criminals. Are the people who speed also criminals? Do you speed in your POV? Do you jaywalk? The very fact that you drew the comparison between mj and speeding is an indication of how innocuous and petty the crime of recreational pot smoking really is.

You also mentioned the unregulated strength and adjuncts that are in pot now making it much more potent and potentially dangerous. This is a good point. Again, the legalization of pot would bring the production process out in the open, and also open up the trade to regulatory oversight. During prohibition, people were going blind from trying to make their own bathtub gin from ingesting wood alcohol. When's the last time you heard of that happening?

 

[Tez3]

Okay. You said that these 16.7 million people are criminals. Are the people who speed also criminals? Do you speed in your POV? Do you jaywalk? The very fact that you drew the comparison between mj and speeding is an indication of how innocuous and petty the crime of recreational pot smoking really is.

You also mentioned the unregulated strength and adjuncts that are in pot now making it much more potent and potentially dangerous. This is a good point. Again, the legalization of pot would bring the production process out in the open, and also open up the trade to regulatory oversight. During prohibition, people were going blind from trying to make their own bathtub gin from ingesting wood alcohol. When's the last time you heard of that happening?

That happens in Ireland when they make poteen.

I suspect ballen doesn't speed or jaywalk though

 

[ballen0351]

Okay. You said that these 16.7 million people are criminals. Are the people who speed also criminals? Do you speed in your POV? Do you jaywalk? The very fact that you drew the comparison between mj and speeding is an indication of how innocuous and petty the crime of recreational pot smoking really is.

You also mentioned the unregulated strength and adjuncts that are in pot now making it much more potent and potentially dangerous. This is a good point. Again, the legalization of pot would bring the production process out in the open, and also open up the trade to regulatory oversight. During prohibition, people were going blind from trying to make their own bathtub gin from ingesting wood alcohol. When's the last time you heard of that happening?

Its not petty and innocuous to the families of addicts that steal from them. Its not petty to children who get left at home alone so the parents can go get blitzed. How petty is it when you find a bag of weed in your kids dresser? I could care less if you smoke pot recreationally It illegal but most police won’t bother you unless you’re driving around with it or selling it.

Yes I do speed in my POV. I also except the consequence that if Im caught I could get a ticket. I don’t expect the law to change to allow my criminal behavior. NAMBLA lobbies to allow child molestation they give just as many "Good" reasons for it as you do for smoking weed.

You act like as soon as Weed is legal and regulated people will stop selling it on the black market. Weed and Alcohol are very different it take a complicated process to make alcohol. It takes a seed and dirt to grow pot. Growing it and selling it is going to be cheaper then to buy it from a store. Only now we have no way to stop it because we made weed legal.

 

[Sukerkin]

I do think that perhaps, in an urge to 'win' the argument here and now, that the very serious point that the 'war on drugs' is ineffective and expensive is in danger of being overlooked. Along the way, the good positions that were being made are starting to drown in tenuous and extreme comparisons.

The point of my OP at the end of the day was that the most senior officials tasked with 'dealing' (no pun intended) with the problem know that the evidence shows it can't be stopped, or even slowed down to any noticeable extent.

I wondered what the views were of our American cousins on this issue, not really whether the trade deserves to be illegal or not. That is a related matter but not the key point. The very fact that useage is climbing seems to show that the real fight, the one to educate drug-use out of existence rather than eradicate by force of law, has been lost.

I wish that that weren't so, for as I said some pages ago, I lost a whole 'generation' of friends through their use of illegal drugs of one sort or another. But historically this has ever been the case when mind-altering substances bump into a desire to legislate on the part of government viz the more that it is attempted to 'ban', the more harm gets done by the criminal element (and the drug users caught in the gears).

I suppose that my own stance is pretty close to Bill's on this. I am just one step to the left, so to speak, in that, tho' I am unhappy about it, I do think that the trade should become officially regulated and commercialised. It works okay(ish) for tobacco and alcohol after all, which are the closest extant synonyms that occur to me.

 

[Steve]

Its not petty and innocuous to the families of addicts that steal from them. Its not petty to children who get left at home alone so the parents can go get blitzed. How petty is it when you find a bag of weed in your kids dresser? I could care less if you smoke pot recreationally It illegal but most police won’t bother you unless you’re driving around with it or selling it.

And now we're back to the "what about the children" argument. Every vice has the potential to be abused and there are personal consequences. If someone is addicted to the internet and plays WoW at the expense of his personal and professional life that's not a good thing. But MMORPGs aren't illegal. If someone abuses alcohol, that can be devastating to a family. If someone is addicted to gambling, the effects are often tragic and many families never recover. It's sad when it happens. But it doesn't happen to most people.

And again, just so that it's VERY clear, I am not and have never suggested that pot or any other recreational drug including alcohol is anything other than a very bad idea for minors. In fact, in this thread, I've reiterated my position that I don't like anything that affects a child's brain, whether it's a legal or illegal drug, or being hit in the head in martial arts class. A child's developing brain is, in my opinion, something that should be well taken care of, and this is particularly true through adolescence, where puberty is wreaking havoc on a child physically, mentally and emotionally. So, to answer your question, if I found weed in my kid's dresser, sparks would fly. Same would be true if I found out he was drinking alcohol or huffing scotch guard or getting high in any number of easily accessible ways.

I hope that puts to rest the strawman you're arguing against now.

Yes I do speed in my POV. I also except the consequence that if Im caught I could get a ticket. I don’t expect the law to change to allow my criminal behavior. NAMBLA lobbies to allow child molestation they give just as many "Good" reasons for it as you do for smoking weed.

So... you're a criminal. By your definition. Even if you're willing to pay the fine, you're knowingly breaking the law. Huh.

Judging the value of one topic over another is subjective and irrelevant. Trying to associate this subject with something completely off topic is just smoke and mirrors. If you're interested in legalizing pedophilia, start another thread and I'll tell you why I think you're a pervert.

You act like as soon as Weed is legal and regulated people will stop selling it on the black market. Weed and Alcohol are very different it take a complicated process to make alcohol. It takes a seed and dirt to grow pot. Growing it and selling it is going to be cheaper then to buy it from a store. Only now we have no way to stop it because we made weed legal.

People make alcohol in their homes all the time. I know exactly what's involved in making a really good brew, and have done it myself many times. Fun and delicious.