Should the Drug War be ended?

Great Debates
61

avalongod wrote:

You can find the original research on such things on my site, such as the largest such study ever conducted by the US Federal Government. The quote above says nothing about what might cause those things, and certainly doesn’t name any source research.

I have the full text of the Federal Government’s own research on that. Cannabis is not a major cause of automobile accidents, and the Institute of Medicine Report, 1999, concluded that there was no conclusive evidence linking pot to cancer.

No, you are confused again.

And what do those otherwise undescribed references say about “policy”?

No, you are missing a few things. Your model rather assumes no new addicts for five years in there.

If the average age of addicts is getting older at about one year per calendar year, then it shows that the addicts are aging, and there are few young addicts coming into the fold.

Like I said, I have the equivalent of about 1,000 books there, including the largest studies of the subject ever conducted. You can start by telling me what the half-truths, selective interpretations, statistics and quotations taken out of context were in the US National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse. Or were you just making this up because it was the first bluff you could think of?

I do note that you aren’t terribly good at answering direct questions.

No, I have always said that, when it comes to drug policy, you can put my personal desires for any of these drugs last on the list of priorities. And you don’t have any clue what my personal habits are, or are not, so you are just grasping at straws.

You obviously didn’t take the time to notice, but the largest single chunk of it comes directly from the US Federal Government. Which part of that did you think was crap?

And, of course, you obviously weren’t aware that my site is approved for kids by all the net nanny programs and is recommended for students at schools and colleges around the world.

Yeah, I can imagine why you wouldn’t enjoy this. But you would do better if you actually read something before you sought to criticize it. It is clear that you haven’t even read the materials you are complaining about.

62

Dr. J wrote:

Here is the link again. You can find it under http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer under Government Publications

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/GovPubs/psycviol.htm

PCP is not consistently associated with violent behavior.

A few points:

Yes, that’s a fair summation of the opinions of the addiction specialists I have talked to, as well.

I don’t think you meant by MY logic. I was agreeing with your point above. Most doctors I have met have quite a bit stronger ethics than to allow someone to die, whatever their sins might have been.

63

Dr. J wrote:

Here is the link again. You can find it under http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer under Government Publications

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/GovPubs/psycviol.htm

PCP is not consistently associated with violent behavior.

A few points:

Yes, that’s a fair summation of the opinions of the addiction specialists I have talked to, as well.

I don’t think you meant by MY logic. I was agreeing with your point above. Most doctors I have met have quite a bit stronger ethics than to allow someone to die, whatever their sins might have been.

64

Cliff–sorry about that. I was responding to the person who made that comment, not you.

Dr. J

65

As a 10th grader, I do have some notes and facts I can share about Marijuana. These are from my teacher, so I hope we don’t go into any stuff about propaganda(sp.), if you want to discuss the rightness of my facts, then start a new thread.
()- Clarification
- My oppinions

MJ:
Marijuana is Fat Soluable (High can return, if you wish to say, flashbacks).

Symptoms- Euphoric Feeling, Cravings, Red Eye, Increased Heart Rate, Lung irritation, “Reflectiveness” (Personality wise) Distorts: Time, Space, Memory and Color[Possible cause of automobile accidents].

In large doses: Anxiety Attacks, & Panic Reactions.

Amount of tar is the same as 1.5 ciggarettes.

Result: Amotivational Syndrome, Short Term Memory Loss, Inability to focus.

Marijuana is not physically addictive, but is psychologically addictive.

[I’m not trying to prove or disprove anything, I just hope this can be a reference to the debate.]

-PPKue

66

PowerpuffKue;
I find no factual error in any of your claims, except for a couple of nitpicks. To wit:
“Marijuana is Fat Soluable (High can return, if you wish to say, flashbacks).”

I think it’s the metabolytes of mj that are fat soluable. I don’t believe you can have a high flashback from these metabolytes. At least not in my experience.

“Marijuana is not physically addictive, but is psychologically addictive.”

Psychologically addictive in some peaple.

Please, don’t play with any of this stuff. Including alchohol. Give your body and mind a chance to develop and mature naturally.
Peace,
mangeorge

67

I would like to extend my sincerest gratitude for those dopers out there who feel that my life is not beyond redemption and it’s not too late for me to be “cured” of my terrible affliction. Thank you avalongod, Derleth et al for your concern, but Ive managed to graduate university, learn 4 languages, travel the world extensively for 7 years, and have a beautiful family all with the baggage of my weed addiction. (oh, and I have smoked every day for the past 15 years or so).
You and your crusaders are missing the point completely. The question is not whether ganga is harmful to the body and mind or not (of course we all know that it is) but whether the degree to which this effects our lives justifies the resources and effort the government puts into catching me (and lets face it, the powers that be are not interested in “curing” or even helping me; they want my sorry ass in jail)
Avalongod said

Since when is being extensively read and informed on a subject synonymous with being too emotional to debate the topic? Indeed, you seem to be the intellectual midget here. Dare I say, you were raised to believe “drugs are bad” and no amount of facts presented to you are going to change your lacklustre thinking on the subject. Please talk to someone with some experience (you might even be able to find one of us nasty “dope fiends” with first hand experience coherant enough to speak).
Before you continue on your tirade (which I somehow feel you will) please consider who around you might be a marijana user, and how it has effected THEIR life. A little insight goes a long way…

68

Powerpuffcue: The things you noted are essentially correct, and despite what you might be hearing from other posters, have been conclusively demonstrated by empirical research.

Cliffshaffer and Gabba-Gabba: Obviously because I do not share in your “enlightened” view on cannabis, you are leaping to the judgement that I am not well-read and an “intellectual midgit.” Thus my point about your being too emotionally invested to carry on an actual debate and exchange of ideas and information. It seems to me that you fellas are the ones who are not well read on the subject…oh I have no doubt you have poured over thousands of bits of pro-leaf stuff, but you consistently ignore the actual empirical research. One of you mentioned something to the effect that cannabis is not as bad as the other narcotis. This is, of course true, but that is akin to saying one is the most civilized monkey in the monkey cage. To believe what you are saying would be to suggest that the US government, the AMA and the APA are all in line behind pro-cannabis, and that their research supports this viewpoint, and that sirs is simply not true. You asked for references, yet you dismiss them (even the DSM_IV…the culminating body of psychiatric research which decries cannabis abuse was not good enough).

I am ultimately reminded of those tobacco executives who held until the end that smoking did not cause cancer. The powers of the human mind to convince itself of anything despite an overwhelming wealth of empirical research to suggest caution will never cease to amaze me.

At any rate your replies approach the point of laughability, and it is clear you aren’t listening or respecting viewpoints and evidence which differ from your own. That is the ultimate shame here, whatever your opinions.

69

To Cliff and GabbaGabba -

Time to give up guys… “you can’t argue with a fool”. It is obvious avalongod refuses to address the relevant issues. Here are my oh-so-humble opinions:

Question 1) Is marijuana bad for me? Yes. For the average user, marijuana is not seen as being beneficial to general health. No-one here so far has claimed it to be so. (AIDS, cancer and MS sufferers feel free to disagree here)

Question 2) Should I go to prison for smoking marijuana? No. I think even to avalongod the reasons should be obvious. Prisons are brimming with people on marijuana convictions whose incarceration serve society no purpose at all. Hell man, even your own mother probably tried a “reefer” in her time.

Question 3) Will the US be a better place if the drug laws are relaxed? Who knows, but can it get much worse? Seriously.

70

If you wanted a new thread, then start one.

Fat soluble is correct. The stuff about flashbacks is not. I suggest you read The Consumers Union Report on Licit and Illicit Drugs at http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/cu/cumenu.htm The section on LSD contains a discussion of flashbacks. LSD is the only drug for which this myth commonly occurs.

I also suggest that you recommend this book to your teacher. It is the best book ever written on the subject and should be required reading for all teachers.

Correct, except for the fact that it is not associated with any significant number of auto accidents. The reason is that it doesn’t destroy coordination the same way alcohol does. You can find the US Government’s own research on mj and alcohol accidents at http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer under Drugs and Driving.
Some research shows that stoned drivers actually have lower accident rates than average.

That’s not to say that it is recommended while driving, of course, only that it isn’t a major cause of accidents.

[quote[In large doses: Anxiety Attacks, & Panic Reactions. [/quote]

Very rare, usually only occur in novice users, and invariably can be effectively treated by calming the person down and letting the drug wear off in a couple of hours.

My observation is that such attacks are far more common in people who have been subjected to lots of anti-drug propaganda.

Depends upon what you are smoking and how you are smoking it.

No, that’s a myth. For reference, see the Major Studies of Drugs and Drug Policy, most of which discuss the issue.

Somewhat, but not enough that it makes much difference. To sum it up, the only reliable method of telling if a person is stoned on pot is to ask them.

Damn near everything people like is psychologically addictive. Ice cream, chocolate (actually those are physically addictive for some people), gambling, warm socks, Star Trek re-runs, etc.

Try the references I have listed, and do share them with your teacher. They are a bit more comprehensive and accurate than the stuff you have received in school.

71

avalongod wrote:

Then you certainly ought to be able to show us that research, correct?

I didn’t call you an “intellectual midgit” (I would have spelled it right, if I had) – that’s your own judgment.

And it is not because you don’t share my view that I say you are not well-read on the subject – it is because you obviously can’t answer the most basic factual questions. Get the difference?

I have provided about half a gig of information on the subject. How about you?

Let’s see – we can answer basic factual questions and you can’t. What would that indicate?

Which “pro-leaf” stuff are your referring to? You obviously haven’t even looked well enough to tell what you are commenting on.

I keep asking you to supply something better. You don’t seem to be able to do so.

No, you obviously missed the facts again. If you had read very much on the subject, you would know that cannabis is not a narcotic.

Well, that’s a pretty crummy analogy but, at best it would mean that cannabis is more civilized than alcohol (which I would agree with) – which leaves us with no logical reason for the laws against cannabis.

How would you know if you have never even read the research? At this point, it appears you can’t even accurately name the titles of the research.

In case you missed it, right or wrong, it didn’t say anything about drug policy (you know, what the laws should be) and didn’t mention any supporting research. And, of course, if you look up alcohol, you will find an even bigger list of problems it might cause.

Yes, and they were effectively rebutted by people who had the research at hand and actually read it.

You keep talking about this “overwhelming wealth of empirical research”. I guess you didn’t read my site well enough to find that I consistently ask people to submit any research I missed. You haven’t done so, so far.

Like I said, any time you can actually come up with that research, I would love to see it. You haven’t done so, so far. In fact, you haven’t read my site well enough to even tell what is there, or what it said. For all you know, all that information on my site could agree with you, not me.

72

Avalongod - I just caught your link to the NIH at http://www.nida.nih.gov/MarijBroch/MarijparentsN.html
That was such a twisted piece of material my skin is still crawling. Seriously, it reads like something from the 50’s. If your going to use a reference like that, please include a warning. (Sorry - jibes aside)
The whole site was dedicated to mj use and KIDS. No-one is advocating distribution of mj to children. We are talking about illogical laws which relate to free thinking adults! In any case, if anything, the decriminilisation of mj would stifle the availability of pot to the young. Under current laws, a 15 year old does not have much trouble getting hold of some marijuana via a vast network of dealers (it passed through a helluva lot of hands before it got to your average kid.) Whilst decriminilisation would effectively cut-out the dealers (who also have harder drugs available for sale) through government regulation, it would be foolish to think that this alone would stop kids getting pot. (Take a look at how many kids are getting drunk)
But really, we’re not talking about mj and kids here…

73

First off, apologies for mixing the smoked/chewed opium. It was before 1914, though.

Second…I know marijuana is not as good for me as, say carrots. Who am I endangring if I smoke, though? My kids? No…I never smoke when I’m alone in the house, and even when other adults are here I rarely smoke before they go to bed. Would it be better for me to swig a six-pack in front of them while watching TV? It’s legal, after all.

Third: What right does the government have to tell me that if I use a substance reponsibly in my own home and don’t offer it to minors, I should still go to prison? Why is it illegal? Because it has no beneficial uses? What about butter? Red meat? Alcohol? Chocolate? Triple-mocha no-fat latte? Tic-Tacs? Are any of those good for me? No? Then why am I allowed to have them?

Please note: all of the things contained in this post are purely hypothetical and should in no way be construed to mean that I have ever smoked, eaten, smelled, seen, or knowingly been within five miles of marijuana or any other illegal substance ever in my life.

74

Couple articles from The Atlantic I found interesting:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/crime/reefm.htm

Judge for yourself the slant, if any, of the authors and the publication.

The 1st 3 have to do with the war on drugs. They discuss the recent proliferation in antidrug laws, increased penalties, why such legislation is attractive to politicians, personal rights that are potentially infringed, etc. Also discuss how low-level dealers/users are disproportionately punished because they don’t have anyone to inform on. The 4th article discusses the dynamics of the current prison/industrial complex. Keeping lots of folks behind bars is Big Business with a couple of capital Bs.

I first heard this view expressed by an Assistant U.S. Attorney. She asked, “Does the government really want to win the war on drugs? It is such big business. I, for one, would be out of a job.”

Think about it. How much federal, state, and local bureaucracy is dependent upon the war on drugs for their continued existence? How desirable are prisons for depressed economies? Look around Illinois, or New York state; small towns are competing for proposed prisons. Private, for-profit prisons are now being built on spec. What portion of various law enforcement budgets are generated by asset forfeitures related to drug investigations? (Check into forfeiture law and process if you really want to get paranoid!) Is it coincidental that, lacking an ongoing war, the armed forces have been pressed into the war on drugs?

Perhaps I am too cynical, but I believe too many powerful entities have very strong economic interests in keeping drugs illegal and continuing to wage the apparently ineffectual war on drugs.

Digression - I recall reading somewhere that if we were interested in stopping the flow of Cocaine from central america, it would be cheaper to simply buy all they could produce at market rates and then destroy it, than to fund the cocaine interdiction portion of the WoD. Probably not true, but I found it an amusing concept.

I say legalize it all, tax the hell out of it, and put the $ into education and rehab. No way that will ever float politically, of course. Was shooting the breeze on this topic w/ my doctor one time, and she came out as a strong legalization advocate, and said many of her colleagues shared her view. She considered it inappropriate that more funds were not allocated to rehab and education. In her opinion, the only downside to legalization would be that we would lose a certain number of people. Some people, who would be unable to control themselves, would die. We can debate, if you wish, how many deaths would make the policy unacceptable. But I will point out, that bodies pile up on the south and west sides of Chicago every day. They just don’t make the paper. Wonder why that is?

I can easily imagine that some people, given easier access to hard drugs, would overindulge. And perhaps a greater number of people would casually use. But not everyone would turn into drug crazed maniacs. Your mom and dad wouldn’t go out and shoot up just cause they could. Cigarettes are legal, but the incidence of smoking has been steadily decreasing. And it is hard to believe that violent crime by addicts and suppliers, and gang influence wouldn’t decrease.

Final small point, it is a weak reed for legalization opponenets to cite the lack of research on the effects of drugs as a reason to not legalize, when the current status of the substances bars the majority of legitimate research.

75

matt_mcl, in a early post, says;
“As to the drug war: there was an excellent article in Harper’s magazine a couple months ago about how the drug war violates people’s constitutional rights - practically all of them.”

This is a point that has always intrigued me. How can a natural substance which has never been proven to be harmful be criminalized in the first place? And how can it be a right (almost an obligation), To own a weapon but illegal to use something as benevolent as pot?
I’m going to try to find more information on this subject. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Peace,
mangeorge

76

Justice Information Center:

http://www.ncjrs.org/

Go there and hear some intelligent discussion.

77

The official site:

http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/legaliz/contents.htm

78

When I said Marijuana is fat soluable, that is incorrect, THC is fat soulable. And when I meant flashbacks, I meant the symptoms could return. I know Marijuana is not a hallucinogen(sp.). If THC is fat soluable, it can return and with it comes the high/symptoms. (Feel free to recorrect me if I am just not getting it)

And about the book, I think my teacher was just misinformed because she has been one of the most honest teachers I have ever had, she’s either a very good actor or just misinformed.

I accually never said it WAS the reason for auto accidents, I mearly said it was a possiblilty, and logically, it makes sence that it could happen, but it won’t cause a huge number of them, considering alot of people smoke it in their back yard, or home, etc.

Hmmm… weird, doesn’t make sence how propaganda has ANYTHING to do with panic attacks espically from Mary Jane. And just to clarify about propaganda, I have nor ever will be swayed by anti-drug propaganda.

I hear ciggarettes could give lung cancer(From the Red Cross), therefore I don’t do it, is that propaganda? I hear and see alcohol distorts people and messes them up, therefore I don’t do it, Propaganda? I think not. I learn about alot of the illegal drugs, and associate them with ciggarettes and alcohol, propaganda?

Not trying to attack you or anything, but I feel that comment was completely sterotypical, and unessary in your post. The rest was intelligent and logical, and appriciate the corrections.

79

Sure, it doesn’t matter if it’s fat soluble or not-lots of things are fat soluble. Vitamin A, I believe, for instance, is fat soluble. The fact that it is fat soluble is irrelevant to flashbacks-which in any case are a purely psychological phenomenum. The symptoms cannot return unless you take more.

I don’t doubt that she is misinformed, since very few teachers I know would willingly disseminate things they knew to be false to their students, have you considered helping her out a bit?

Why not? Someone who is either ignorant of what they’re ingesting, or believes it to be more harmful than it actualy is is likely to be more nervous than someone who actually knows about what they’re taking. Panic attacks are not the direct effect of the drug – it just increases your susceptibility to have them. (In other words, you can have them, you’re more likely to have them, but it’s not guaranteed that you will have them.)

Um, yet you repeat anti-drug propaganda that you’ve heard?

Yes, actually, it is. In this case, however, it’s propaganda supported by empirical evidence.

And you’d be right, much of that is, I would assume, real life experience, not propaganda. Now if all you had were people telling you that it did, it would be propaganda.

Um, you associating illegal drugs with cigarettes and alcohol? No, that’s not propaganda, but what you’re learning sounds a bit like it.

80

From the desk of Derleth came:

You honestly think that? From what I can gather, the whole document refers almost exclusively to the harder drugs. To these guys, you’d think marijuana was a close cousin of PCP. Mostly, the document is worded in such a way as to make you, dear reader, presume marijuana to be just as bad as all other drugs, but without actually saying it (Could they be sued for disseminating false information if they did? Who’d have the guts?) Look Derleth, avalongod et al, the bottom line is this. Forget all the DEA rubbish. Forget what we have told you. Answer this simple question (and please use your common sense on this one):

Should pot users go to prison?

Awaiting your reply…