So does the argument that the Earth is 5 billion years old rather than 5 thousand, and spherical rather than flat. An argument’s failure to penetrate invincible ignorance is not a flaw in the argument.
Thank you for presenting a claim with substantiation. However, I referred to legalization and not decriminalization.
That aside, it’s an odd study. I would think that one wishing to study decriminalization would use as a control a city with a reasonably aggressive prohibition policy rather than San Francisco, USA, one of the leaders in the medical marijuana movement. Their justification - they wanted 2 University port cities - makes little sense. Firstly, SF’s port is tiny (Oakland’s, OTOH, is huge). Secondly, why didn’t they pick cities that would reflect mainstream Holland and mainstream America?
Here are some quotes:
What would I conclude? Setting aside the dubious methodology, the study provides suggestive evidence that decriminalization, even aggressive decriminalization as in Holland, does not change the trajectory of use among known users. (I’m guessing that greater parental involvement discourages pot use among Dutch teens and that in both countries, college overwhelmingly provides opportunity for heavier pot use.)
The study said nothing, as far as I can tell, about the shares of, say, 30 year olds, who smoke in each city. "…nearly 500 respondents who had used marijuana at least 25 times were asked detailed questions about their marijuana use. " Emphasis added. Such methodology says little about the preponderance of smoking in each of the two cities. Anecdotally, I will note that I’ve smelled ganga weed in Amsterdam bars, even yuppie Amsterdam bars. I can’t recall that happening when I visited SF, though I’ve smelled weed in various public parks in cosmopolitan US cities.
Well, seeing as how there’s no country that has completely legalized marijuana, this is the best we can get. Really, pot is de facto legal in Holland, as it is sold openly in business establishments. It’s not at all like the decriminalization that occured in several states in the U.S. in the '70s.
They picked the most liberal cities of both countries. I, too, don’t see what the presence of a port has to do with anything, but I think the main point was that both cities are politically liberal.
Er, well, yeah. That’s because the San Franciscans stand a far higher chance of being arrested. Your point?
If the bars in Amstersterdam don’t discourage their patrons from smoking marijuana on the premises, that’s the fault of the bar owners, not the fault of the law.
I was stating this against Mr. 2001’s idea that no drugs should be prescription only. If all pharmaceuticals were unrestricted in sale, you would get a lot of people taking the wrong medications for their ills instead of going to a doctor to get all tested, pricked, and fingered. If it was a serious illness, certainly they would eventually go, but by then they might have caused themselves some harm through both waiting and using the wrong medication. Plus they may become addicted to the medication and might end up taking it regardless.
What marijuana has to do with skiing, you’ll have to Mr. 2001; but apparently they are the same, as is their misuse.
As to “taking the easy way out”, well what illness is marijuana a medicine for? It’s a downer–so most likely, if it was extracted into a pill form it would end up as something in a psychiatrists bag o’ goodies. Riddlin used properly gets people back in tune with the world. Used by someone without ADHD, it becomes a way to escape the world and ignore your problems.
Um, when did I say that?
Let’s review: I asked if you thought drugs should be illegal when they don’t serve a medical purpose (I don’t think they should). You said yes, because misuse of drugs can cause harm to others.
I said that’s true of anything imaginable (which it is - misuse of a baseball bat can easily harm others, for example). You responded to that with something about skiing in the summer.
I am not asking you whether you think drugs intended to treat a disease should require prescriptions. People who smoke pot to get high are not trying to cure any illness, they’re doing it for fun.
They’re similar in that they’re both slightly dangerous forms of recreation that usually serve no medical purpose.
It may have value for treating some illnesses, but the majority of users are not trying to treat any illness.
Actually, there is a synthetic pill form of one of the substances in marijuana, called Marinol, which is used to treat nausea and vomiting in chemotherapy patients.
Marijuana is not a “downer” or depressant like alcohol or GHB. It has some things in common with depressants, others in common with stimulants, and others in common with hallucinogens. Marijuana is usually considered its own category of drug.
Now you’re sounding like an after-school special. Although some people might use drugs to take their mind off of their problems, that’s not what recreational drug use is generally about.
Unless you can explain how the following doesn’t equate to such:
By “so much more strictly” I was referring to your belief that drugs (and not sporting goods) should be illegal if they only serve a recreational purpose.
So if I find a way to smoke ritalin* does this mean that we should have it stop being a prescription-only drug?
- I mispelled this in my previous post
You don’t need a way to smoke it, people already use the pills recreationally.
I’d say it probably should be legal for recreational use, though I’m willing to be convinced otherwise. I don’t know all that much about Ritalin.
[slight hijack]
Ritalin, crushed up and snorted, is actually a rather potent recreational drug. Much like prescription amphetamines (e.g. Adderall) used for ADD, it has the opposite of its intended pharmaceutical effect in adults who don’t suffer from ADD - that is, it’s a powerful stimulant.
Having tried both cocaine and Ritalin about a dozen times each in the past, I’d say that Ritalin can be either more or less powerful than cocaine, depending on the purity of the coke.
So basically, if you favor legalization of recreational Ritalin, so too should you favor the same of cocaine.
Though it may not be a popular opinion, I think people should be able to put whatever the hell they want into their own bodies, so I favor the legalization of both.
[/hijack]
And, here’s where logic comes to a screeching halt:
Not really. There are plenty of reasons to ban one and not the other. Not knowing a lot about either, I’m forced to be vague here, but do both have the same exact side effects? Are both equally physically addictive? Do both create the same amount of harm to the human body? Do both produce the same amount of harm on the environment to the families of users? Are they equally easy to control the content and dosing of to minimize overdose and other health risks?
Maybe the answer to all these is yes. I don’t know. But my point is that simply saying they are both stimulants - even saying they are both stimulants of a similar degree - does not logically lead to saying both should be legal.
(Although I’m actually with you and think everything should be made legal and let Darwin sort it out. I’m not even in favor of prescription drugs, honestly.)
I’ve variously heard it can be used to reduce nausea in patients receiving chemotherapy, restore appetite to people with wasting illnesses (like AIDS), and reduce pain for people with glaucoma and, I think, some nerve conditions.
It’s actually believed to reduce intra-occular (inside eye) pressure in glaucoma patients, and to rebuild the myelein sheath surrounding the nerves - the sheath that gets worn away in ALS patients. The myelein sheath thing is very, very exciting, because we know of nothing else that does that, and it could indeed help to slow or even reverse the effects of ALS and some other nerve degenerating diseases.
Sorry for not being more clear. I oversimplified my case, both because the information was a hijack, and because I was on my way out the door for a job interview (got it! yeah!).
Nearly identical. Now, when Ritalin is taken orally, it’s a whole different ball game. The stimulant effects are definitely there, but not nearly as pronounced as when the drug is used intranasally, which is the preferred method of administration for recreational users.
Technically, neither of them are physically addictive, but both can be strongly physchologically addictive. Both are also Schedule II drugs.
This study suggests that Ritalin is actually more powerful than cocaine:
Sort of. From what I’ve read, the side effects of long-term Ritalin abuse tend to be closer to those of amphetamines than cocaine, but obviously still not a pretty picture.
Well, that varies from person to person. Cocaine is far more expensive, so it’s more likely to wreak financial havok on addicts.
Cocaine would definitely be worse in that regard, but only due to its legal status. Even on the street, Ritalin is sold in pill form and crushed by the users. Cocaine is sold is a powder of unknown purity, though users can generally get a pretty good sense of the potency of a particular batch just from snorting a line or two.
Of course you’re right, but in this case they are quite similar. Sorry for the oversimplification.
Sorry, but no. A legal substance can be produced by publically listed companies. This does not occur in Holland and relates to one of my 2 central points, i.e. regulatory capture.
Radical thought: If you want to comment upon the effects of punitive marijuana laws, one of your cities should enforce punative marijuana laws. (OTOH, if you live across the Bay from SF, there may be issues of convenience to consider).
Furthermore, your missed the central point: the study did not compare the incidence of marijuana use in the 2 cities. Rather, it focussed on side-issues like is marijuana a gateway drug, etc.
I used piss-poor anecdotal evidence to indicate the incidence of marijuana use in the 2 cities: Amsterdam won: lesser punishment for smoking pot results in -hey whadya know- more pot smoking. (BTW, I didn’t find the pot smoke to be intrusive in Amsterdam bars.)
Again though, to get a handle on this issue would require some sort of benefit/cost analysis, preferably backed by quality research. I understand that such research is difficult to pursue in the US, alas.
Actually, no, your anecdote indicated nothing about the prominence of marijuana use in those cities. It only indicated something (to the extent that any anecdote can) about the prominence of marijuana use in bars in those cities. If those people were afraid of being arrested for smoking pot in a bar, I suspect they’d still be smoking in the privacy of their own homes.
Fair enough. I freely admit that I know little about economics, but from what I do know, this regulatory capture argument feels more like grasping at straws than anything substantial.
Anyway, how about some nice, solid numbers on the rates of marijuana use countrywide in both the U.S. and Holland?
From the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs (PDF) :
One thing you may notice is the disparity between the 34% cited here and the nearly half I claimed earlier in this thread. That’s due to the Dutch PDF factoring in everyone over age 12. The lower rates among young teens seem to skew the numbers a bit.
According to the U.S. National Insititute on Drug Abuse, the percentage of 12th graders who have tried marijuana is 46.1%, and has reached over 49% in a couple of recent years. 53% of those aged 18 to 25 have tried pot.
View both documents and you’ll see that the rates of recent use and daily use are also both higher in the U.S. than in the Netherlands.
2001:
Granted and conceded: anecdotes are not data anyway, and mine was laughable.
Call it a hypothesis: just as people will respond to higher prices, greater legal penalties will discourage certain behaviors.
Data:
In 1997, a Dutch study was released indicating that 8% of all Amsterdam residents smoke pot in the last month, 36% during their lifetime (See table 3.1). This compares with last-month rates of 70%* for alcohol, 1% for cocaine
http://www.cedro-uva.org/lib/abraham.prvasd97.html and 42% for Tobacco.
70 & 42% are both greater than 8 and 1%. Legality matters.
What about the US?
“Nationally, an average of 5.1 percent of persons aged 12 or older reported using marijuana in the past month from 1999 through 2001.”
http://oas.samhsa.gov/2k5/subStateMJ/subStateMJ.htm
5% < 8% , though admittedly they are not too far apart[1]. I don’t have to dig up the US last-month alcohol figures, do I?
Just to be clear: I’m all for harm reduction and scientific research. But I oppose wishful thinking and attachment to convenient beliefs. In that spirit, I’ll note that the differences in marijuana usage in the US and Holland are not overwhelming.
[1] State by state data shows last month pot smoking in the range of 2.3 - 12.2%.
On preview: I see that we’ve both been busy Neutron. See ya tomorrow!
The usage rates of any given drug rise and fall as it fades in and out of vogue. You’re comparing data from different years. The Dutch information I linked to compared rates for the same year. Even then, though, you’ll find that in some years marijuana has a higher usage rate in Holland than in the U.S., and in other years, the opposite.
Preferences and trends matter far more than legality and taxes. Note that in the Dutch PDF, the rates of alcohol use are much higher than they are in the U.S., despite the fact that it is legal in both countries, and also despite the fact that Holland taxes alcohol at a higher rate than the U.S.
Illegal drug use is underreported. A recently publicized Italian study which measured levels of a cocaine metabolite in the sewage of a certain province, estimated usage of 40,000 doses daily, as opposed to survey-derived estimates of 15,000 doses daily. Consider that the major drug use survey in the US, from which that 5% percent figure is arrived at, boasts a response rate of typically 75% i.e. 1 out of 4 refuse to answer. In Holland, cannabis may be illegal on paper, but is de facto legal and tolerated, so the underreporting effects won’t be comparable.