Without apology, no. The first link was to a 105 page .pdf file covering all illicit drugs in the UK. I skimmed about 30 pages before I lost interest. You also linked to 2 websites and a proposal.
As for the 2nd paper, I did not see how it addressed the relative effectiveness of Prohibition in the first year vs. other years.
These are interesting links, Gyan, at least the ones that I looked at, but the volume of information here is a little high.
Mr 2001:
------- There’s only a sharp increase in the official numbers (the first graph). If we assume that the official numbers don’t include black market alcohol sales, and use the cirrhosis numbers as a proxy for alcohol consumption, there’s only a gradual increase in the years after Prohibition.
I thought that black market alcohol sales were small following Prohibition. My understanding is that Myron uses cirrhosis to proxy for alcohol usage when no official numbers are available.
Look, gang, your links may say otherwise. But methinks that it’s your job to dig out the relevant quote. (Or not: I’m not saying that you have to bother.)
----- Considering what else was going on around that time (the end of the Great Depression; World War II), Prohibition may not have been the major factor.
Emphasis added. Agreed. My hypotheses are consistent with the data that I’ve observed. But so are lots of POVs.
Now there are statistical tests that could potentially falsify my contention that the absence of Prohibition stimulated alcohol sales during the 1933+ period. They may have even have been tried. But I haven’t seen them.
If it was a good proxy during Prohibition, it should be a good proxy in the few years before and after Prohibition, right?
Just look at those two graphs in my link… compare the trends between 1933 and 1942. That huge upward spike in the official numbers just after Prohibition isn’t there in the cirrhosis numbers. Is it more likely that (1) alcohol consumption dropped off drastically when Prohibition ended and then shot up again in the next few years (which is the only way that spike can be explained if you believe the cirrhosis numbers during Prohibition), or (2) the official numbers underreport the amount of alcohol use in the few years after Prohibition due to, for example, existing stockpiles of black market alcohol?
You use a proxy when you can’t get the underlying data. When the underlying data becomes available, the proxy is of less value. [technical]Except, possibly, as an instrumental variable.[/technical] Still, let’s continue:
The cirrhosis numbers go from about 7.2 to 11 during the period, a sizable increase.
The alcohol consumption numbers go from 2 to 4.5, and then from 4.5 to about 6.2. Now, it’s possible that the first section (2-4.5) is an artifact of data collection methods. I don’t know. If that’s the case, we still have the 4.5 to 6.2 increase to consider, which is roughly consistent with the cirrhosis data.
Huh? I’m looking at Table 2. I see a pronounced decline immediately before Prohibition, then an increase following it.
(Also remember that the cirrhosis incidence should follow alcohol consumption with a lag. Miron mentions this, but doesn’t indicate the lags’ magnitude. Furthermore, I suspect that cirrhosis tracks alcoholism better than alcoholic consumption, per se. Finally, I wonder whether higher adulteration during Prohibition would skew the cirrhosis numbers. I trust that some of these issues are addressed in the original journal articles.)
At any rate, to repeat, when Myron revisited the issue in 2004 with Dills, they found that Prohibition decreased cirrhosis by a small amount: 10-20%.
Interestingly, Myron and Dills also report that Prohibition had a substantial short run effect on drunkenness arrests but roughly a zero long-term effect. (Short run: 1st couple of years of Prohibition. Long-run: More than that.) This is consistent with my understanding that early Prohibition should be treated separately from middle and late Prohibition.
Not to advocate legalization or criminalization of marijuana, but I think we need to re-examine the status of ALL of the drugs. The History Channel has a great series on it and most of are drug law are the result of haphhazard or kneejerk reaction to events and is usually based on incorrect data. This is not to argue that criminalizing drugs is not a good idea, but why are psychologists and psychiatricts banned from even testing the effects of estacy but not LSD. Is marijuana truly a gateway drug? If not, then is THC really worse than nicotine? These are question that should be answered rationally and not emotionally as has been done before.
Indeed. I’ve overlaid the graphs here to highlight what I’m talking about. (The overlay isn’t perfect… one graph is actually a few years shorter than the other.)
The official alcohol consumption numbers more than double from about 1935 to 1938 (yellow line), but there’s only a very gradual rise in the cirrhosis numbers. The next sharp rise (red dot) corresponds much better to a different spike in the official numbers (blue dot).
One possible explanation is that the plateau in the cirrhosis numbers between 1920 and 1933 represents a baseline level of cirrhosis, unaffected by alcohol consumption. (I’m no doctor, so I don’t know how likely that is.) Another is that the official numbers didn’t catch up to actual levels of alcohol consumption until a few years after Prohibition.
Okay, it’s been mentioned before that once marijuana was legalized the user group would eventually stabilize at those who were previously using.
So my take is, I’d sure hate to see those who have been breaking the law for so long be rewarded.
I, for one, typically drive above 25 mph in a 25 mph zone.
Also (FYI only), about 40% of the US population 12 and over have tried marijuana at least once in their lives. cite.
Mr2001: Your analysis is plausible, IMHO. I also wonder whether casual use of alcohol skyrockets following legalization. Occasional drinking presumably wouldn’t be reflected in the cirrhosis data.
A good historical analysis might permit one to sift through some of these hypotheses.
Saintcad: I also understand that cannabis researchers can only use marijuana from a single governmentally approved source. Furthermore, the weed that they supply is allegedly different (lower quality) than that which is commonly available. Unfortunate. cite.
Well, if you think it’s immoral to break any law no matter how bad, illogical, or rooted in racism and bad science it is, then you’re certainly entitled to that opinion, but you’ll also have to consider the fact that the biggest criminals under drug prohibition (i.e. large-scale dealers) will punished by legalization. They will no longer be able to reap huge profits from the drug if they are competing with legal businesses.
Not a different debate, just a larger one. Freedom to run oneself into the ground is ultimately a larger issue than marijuana and brings in welfare, euthanasia, etc.
We’re talking about whether marijuana should or shouldn’t be illegal, and as I said earlier, so far as I am aware in at least modern day USA marijuana is off-limits to protect kids and teens and their futures. So you can argue that it being off-limits does diddly-squat to achieve this and you can argue that it is in fact making matters worse in that regard, but I don’t see that you can argue that we’re only talking about adults.
That’s a perfectly fine argument, but it can be argued just as easily that all that proves is that society at large indeed can’t be trusted to protect kids and so policing needs to be leveled up.
Both seem perfectly logical to me and so as said in my first post, either seems perfectly fine to me.
So you think then that it is principally children’s allowances supporting drug dealers?
I think you’ll have a hard argument to make that it isn’t the purpose of modern day government to see the the greater good of society.
I would vote down the right to murder people. I would vote down the right to hang yourself by the nipples, stark naked in front of the White House until you died of starvation. I wouldn’t necessarily vote down legalising marijuana.
I might disagree with the reasons for it being legalised (I.e. “because I, a smoker, personally want it.”) and I’m perfectly willing to put up as good an argument as possible against marijuana if someone starts a thread asking if anyone is willing to argue against marijuana. But on none of those points do I feel like I’m behaving in any way bigotted.
It does not. And as it’s a rather tightly bound bit of catch-22, I don’t feel that I can really expand it without being very convoluted. But it does not make any assumptions of what is good or bad beyond what is specifically stated.
Given that there are probably better odds of getting the FDA an overhaul for the better in the next five years than having Marlboro Bongs within the next five, I would say that striking it down as untenable doesn’t do your side much good.
:smack: Well, it didn’t stay in my brain very long at least.
But as said before, it is adults who support drug dealers and it is adults who give and sell drugs to children. Legalising that may reduce the number of incidents, but that still doesn’t mean it is necessarily moral to do so.
No emotion was intended nor felt in the writing, nor was it intended to evince such in the reader. As said, it is just as easy a response to increased usage to increase police measures as to reduce it. So if the wind blows in favor of stepping up the drug-war and all that means to me is an extra $50 out of my pocket every year, I can’t say that I begrudge that loss.
The hardcore dealers my department dealt with all started on weed. These are the enterprising youth gang leader dealer types. It was the easiest to get (resell) and had the least penalties. However, it was harder to produce, lower margins, and very labor intensive (where labor can be better spent creating the market, or researching better/more efficient entries into harder/higher margin drugs). But, it did provide the seed money (no pun intended) to get into crack cocaine (the drug of choice in DC, though with the popularizing of marijuana in entertainment media, I assume that it’s making a comeback which the gangs will all be too happy to produce to meet the market).
All of the dealers I dealt with through the department, that actually produced in the US, aren’t the fun and happy growing types sometimes portrayed on tv. These are the people who smuggle/run guns, literally kill the competition, and have such fun and happy marketing schemes to hook your neighborhood kids on drugs, and they also provide such helpful information to find alternative ways to find your next score (my two favorites): prostitution and grand theft larceny. These dealer-prodcuer types were some of the most enterprising people I’ve met. They wanted clean neighborhoods because it presented an untapped market. It gave them a chance to put their marketing machine into work and establish brand loyalty (for lack of a better concept) before prices/outside markets have a chance to influence their market. It also gave them a chance to create a local gang, to give a local face, and to take heat (act as a buffer to the local police).
I will concede that I do not know what percentage the enterprising dealer/gang leader makes up of the entire dealing industry. I’m sure in sheer numbers, the gang leader-dealer is a minority compared to an overwhelming number of independent dealers in the industry, based on a comparrison of corporate businesses in America (I wouldn’t be surprised if the ratios were the same). Unfortunately, it is the gangs that do the most damage. However, blaming the gangs is like blaming capitalism. I guess the point of all this somewhat rambling post is how is the law supposed to distinguish the happy go lucky enterprising gardner and the ruthless, cutthroat future gang leader?
So? I suspect that that’s probably true, to a certain extent. But even if it is, why should that be the final determining factor? Most people who are pro-legalization aren’t saying “oh, Pot is 100% totally completely harmless”. Rather, they’re saying “it’s mostly harmless, so why shouldn’t we be allowed to spend our recreational money the way we choose in a legal fashion instead of an illegal one?”.
I don’t understand your “therefore”. First of all, it’s in no way irreversible. We could certainly return to the state we’re at now, in which pot is illegal but widely available, if we wanted to. Pot being illegal is already pretty much a joke. It’s not like there is no pot in the US, but the moment we let the floodgates open, then everyone will have pot plants in their back yards, and if we make it illegal again, suddenly there will be (gasp) illegal pot. Secondly, so what if it is? How is it any less irreversible if done incrementally? I guess, fundamentally, I just don’t see what your point is. What is your point? What is your position? What is your plan? If you were Boss of the USA, what would you do re pot?
That’s quite interesting. Seriously. But… what does that have to do with pot being legal? Honestly, I suspect from your tone that you’re arguing anti-legalization, but logically, I think the evidence you’re presenting is evidence for the PRO-legalization side. Namely, the more things there are which are basically harmless, but which are illegal, the more demand there is going to be for criminals, the richer and more powerful the criminals will get, and the more bleedover there will be into other crimes. If we made bacon illegal tomorrow, suddenly there would be a criminal bacon market, black market bacon dealers, bacon gangs, bacon-related killings, women forced into prostitution to fund the baconlords, etc.
First off, Neutron Star’s response to this was excellent.
Secondly, so you’re basically saying that you want to make policy decisions that affect millions of lives, billions of dollars of potential criminal vs. tax revenue, and important issues of individual freedom, out of SPITE?
So, yes, if the only question was “how can we reduce pot smoking among teens”, then we might have two proposed solutions:
(1) Legalize pot smoking, so that the vast majority of the people selling it will be law-abiding citizens who will respect age-restrictions, as with alcohol currently
vs
(2) Vastly step up enforcement.
But that was NOT the question. The question was “Should pot be legalized”. One minor argument in favor of legalizing it was the claim that it might reduce teen pot smoking. You’re then arguing that there’s another policy which might also reduce teen pot smoking, and having two possible policies throws you into such a tizzy of confusion that you can’t endorse legalization. Or something like that. I’m not quite sure what your overall point is, actually.
Seriously, though, do you think that the overall benefits to society of vastly stepping up anti-pot enforcement, in terms of money and manpower, are going to be overall better or worse than the overall benefits of legalizing and taxing and regulating pot? Also, note that just about no one, even the most firebreathing of far right absolute moralists, seems to be endorsing vastly stepping up anti-pot enforcement, these days. I wonder why?
Or, in my case, “because I, a non-smoking non-drinking totally straightlaced guy who would never smoke pot even if it was legal, and who certainly could have smoked pot very very safely many times in his life but never has, think that the current law is stupid and destructive and counterproductive. And also because some of the most intelligent, hard-working, productive people I know smoke pot, including a 65-ish aging hippie who has smoked more pot than any 3 people in this thread put together (OK, maybe not) and who lives a far fuller, more active, and more meaningful life than I could ever dream of”.
Logically, it seems to me that legalization would keep drugs out of minors’ hands much more efficiently than policing. (Though I’m not sure if that’s a good thing for youth rights…)
A drug dealer who gets caught is probably going to jail no matter who he sells to; at best, arguing that he went out of his way never to sell to kids might get him a slight reduction in his sentence, if anything. A liquor store owner, on the other hand, is rewarded for following regulations because he gets to earn a living legally and openly.
Legalization would give drug dealers the same incentive to enforce the rules that liquor store owners already have, and third parties (the police) can’t possibly enforce those rules as effectively as the dealers themselves.
The flow of traffic on just about every street and highway around here is 5-10 MPH higher than the posted speed limit. (Even more so on the freeway between Spokane and Seattle, where the limit is 70 but traffic often moves at 85 MPH or higher.) Speeding is the norm, except in traffic jams and bad weather.
But it’s intractably linked to any debate on recreational drug use, and is one of the chief arguments in favor of legalization/decriminalization. You can’t just wave that away by saying, “It’s part of a larger argument.”
We’re talking about wether marijuana should or shouldn’t be illegal for adults. No one is arguing that it should be legal for children. So let’s leave the children out of the debate, as they have nothing to do with it. I’m aware that the “Won’t somebody think of the children?!?” defence has been frequently used to support criminalization of marijuana and other drugs. It was a stupid, insulting argument then, and it remains one today. The behaviors of adults should not be limited to what is acceptable for children.
We can’t trust society to protect kids, so we need to give society more money and power to prosecute drug dealers so we can protect kids? I guess you can argue that, but I don’t see anything easy about it.
What? No, of course not. Where on Earth did you get that from?
Good thing I’m not making that argument, then, isn’t it?
Of course, your first two examples are of acts that unambiguously cause harm to other people. Especially the second one: me being nude in public is about as clear cut a case of harm to the public weal as can be imagined. So far, your reasons for keeping weed illegal seem to be nothing more than, “I don’t smoke, so why should I care about letting other people smoke?” which is about as thin as your charicture of the pro-legalization arguments in this thread. Frankly, I’d hope you’d have better reasons for wasting all that tax money.
Bigotted? Who said anything about you being bigotted?
Well, I suppose it’s nice that you’re saving us the trouble of poking holes in your arguments by stating upfront that you know they’re fallacious, but I’d be more impressed if you took the next logical step and abandoned the argument entirely, instead of just saying it’s too “convoluted” to explain.
Considering that Big Pharma has far more vested in keeping the FDA on a tight political leash than it does in keeping pot on the black market, I just might want to take you up on those odds.
Okay, your first sentence is a total non sequitor. Your second sentence is just plain crazy. If legalizing pot reduces the number of incidents of minor use of the drug, and if keeping kids away from pot is a moral course of action, how the fuck is legalising pot not moral, or less moral than continuing with our current, ineffective policies?
And the actual effectiveness of the policy plays no role at all in your decision making process?
Nope. It’s already illegal. Making it illegal could be called spiteful. Copping the individual freedom plea seems innapropriate when those who feel slighted in the same “breath” go ahead and break the law anyway.
There are some people who think pot should be legal, and like to smoke pot, and smoke pot. They believe that the law is wrong, and they choose to violate that law. You can view this as civil disobedience. You can view it as stupid selfishness. There may be some truth to each view.
But what does that have to do with whether or not pot actually SHOULD be legal?
