I've Changed My Stand On Legalizing Marijuana

[Luke T.]

We're talking about a major change of heart, so this will be long, and then I need someone to provide me some information.

It has been a long process. 25 years, give or take, on changing my stance on the legalization of marijuana. Even though I was a midnight toker myself, I always believed drugs of every kind should be illegal. I stopped partaking of marijuana in 1981.

This is also a story about a son and father in conflict. You see, I decided to announce to my dad tonight that I think marijuana should be legal. It is never easy to go against your dad, especially if you love yours as much as I do.

My dad is out here visiting us since we have produced a new granddaughter. We are both staunch conservatives and always talk politics, and we almost always agree on everything. The other night, though, I hinted that I thought the death penalty was wrong and was suprised to find he agreed. So we both have changed our opinions about that, and for the same reasons. And I guess I decided to push my luck tonight and talk about marijuana.

:D :D :D

As a conservative, I was shocked and disappointed in the 70's when Mr. Conservative himself, Bill Buckley, came out in favor of decriminilizing drugs. That is the point I started my own personal process of thinking about the subject.

A lot of things have brought this about. I mentioned one of them on here a couple months ago when I learned that while marijuana is legal for medical purposes, you have to grow your own if you have a prescription. I thought that was like telling someone they had to grow their own penicillin or mix their own insulin. And imagine the differences in dosage!

I also think that we have wasted a tremendous amount of time, money and resources on waging a war against people who aren't even a problem or menace to society, i.e., the casual dope smoker. If anything, a dope smoker is too lethargic to even be a hazard to himself, unless he gets behind the wheel, in which case he is no more hazardous than a drunk. Not that either is acceptable.

We need to focus on those who abuse, not use. Punishment, discipline and treatment, and not necessarily in that order.

I agree with those who say that illegalizing marijuana is akin to the period of Prohibition. It has only served to create a criminal black market. I could go on, but this point really stoked my dad and I am too weary to repeat my points. :(

I am going to bed in a minute, so I will read all of your replies in the morning. But for my own satisfaction, I was wondering if anyone had a link to research data that shows the rates of addiction for alcohol, marijuana, heroin, nicotine and whatever host of other drugs you can think of.

I am not going to debate this issue any further with my dad. I like him too much. This is for my own use.

Please, no biased web site links. NORML, or the Libertarian Party (sorry, shanek ;) ) or Mothers Against Drunk Drivers or some such thing. Hard science links please.

I have no personal stake in my stance. As a recovering alcoholic, I must also be drug free. I could not and would not partake of marijuana if they gave away a free joint with every purchase of a large fries at McDonald's. And I'm not in favor of marijuana being that legal anyway.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Luke T.

I have no personal stake in my stance. As a recovering alcoholic, I must also be drug free. I could not and would not partake of marijuana if they gave away a free joint with every purchase of a large fries at McDonald's. And I'm not in favor of marijuana being that legal anyway.

All drugs should be available from a government shop in a plain, white wrapper in specified strengths and dosages. Including tobacco and alcohol. This takes away the aura, which is a large part of the experience.

I can't see the bars and entertainment industry doing without the alcohol, though. It is their lifeblood, so I'll make an exception for them.

Much of the crime and criminal activity in the US and Australia is due to junkies after money for drugs. Get rid of the criminality attached to their use, and you still have users, but they don't need bucket loads of cash to run their habits. Hopefully, they will seek out treatment, and get it.

I can't say I have met any drug users who were worried about the criminality of using.

[American]

Keeping it criminal favors those who reject the lifestyles associated with it. If you love it so much you'll break the law for it, that's pretty sad, and we have a Darwin effect right there. If it weren't pot, they should make some other small pleasure illegal. The counter-culture will pick up on it, and conformists will avoid it, the result being jail for law-breakers and nice cars for we law-abiding types. I am more than happy to see others put away while I excel, and pot is as good a reason as any other.

[Tony]

There is a great article in Forbes about the marijuana biss. in canada. Ill see if I can dig it up. Ill make a new thread.

[Cecil]

I am strongly in favour of legalizing marijuana. There's no reason why it should be illegal for adults, but the US government just has so much money invested in brainwashing the public into believing it's evil. Marijuana is also a large part of the economy (especially in BC). It's estimated to be the province's largest export ($3.8 billion US anually) employing 5% of the workforce. And it's all going untaxed!

Rhetoric aside, here are some links to get you started.

Here's a good link on relative addictiveness of various drugs. (http://www.drugsense.org/mcwilliams/www.marijuanamagazine.com/toc/addictiv.htm)

More info on relative addictiveness (http://www.tfy.drugsense.org/tfy/addictvn.htm)

A 1993 study by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration concluding that marijuana has few detrimental effects on driving, and never produces impairment worse than a BAC of 0.08. (http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/general/mjdrive.htm)

A 2000 UK study concluding that driving under the influence of cannabis is not a hazard. (http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_driving6.pdf)

Erowid - a huge, (generally) unbiased repository of drug information. (http://www.erowid.org)

It's not scientific, but it provides some interesting anecdotal evidence about driving on drugs. (http://www.techno.de/mixmag/interviews/Driving_on_drugs.html)

As for books, a couple good reads are Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do : The Absurdity of Consensual Crimes in Our Free Country (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0931580587/qid=1069134990/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/002-8943038-5668057) and Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It: A Judicial Indictment of the War on Drugs (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1566398606/ref=pd_sim_books_4/002-8943038-5668057?v=glance&s=books)

[corplinx]

I am uncomfortably for the making pot legal. I've seen it destroy lives but I say let Darwinism rule.

Hell, if it weren't for pot you could never get someone who speaks good english to roof your house. Painting, Flooring, roofing; professions full of potheads.

These types really remind me of the Lotos Eaters. They are just comfortably numb with no drive. My older brother is one of them and its a hard thing to not just want to ban it and prosecute it harshly.

[fishbob]

The intended effect of marijuana being illegal is reducing MJ use. MJ is illegal, but anybody can get it and many people use it.

The effects of MJ prohibition? Some people make a nice chunk of money selling it and some people go to jail, but the use of MJ is unaffected. Same with cocaine, and other drugs.

Certainly drug abuse destroys lives and is a drain on society, but prohibition is expensive, and does not decrease drug use.

Much like acupuncture and dowsing, people feel better doing something useless rather than doing nothing.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

I can't say I have met any drug users who were worried about the criminality of using.

I would have to disagree with you here. Its always at the back of a users mind. In my druggie daze I would always crap myself when meeting a new dealer.

Nevertheless, the cost to society of enforcing a punitive regime against drug users has been appalling.

[Cecil]

Originally posted by fishbob
Certainly drug abuse destroys lives and is a drain on society, but prohibition is expensive, and does not decrease drug use. I disagree. I can point to some people whose sole reason for not trying marijuana is the fact that it's illegal. Drug use would likely rise immediately after lifting prohibition, as many people would go out and try them. However, I think the long-term effect would probably be towards lower rates of drug use, as I believe was the case with alcohol after Prohibition ended.

A second point that needs to be made is the important distinction between drug use and drug abuse. Just as there is a difference between having a glass of wine and drinking a fifth of vodka every night, there is a difference between using drugs responsibly to enhance the quality of your life and being high as a kite all the time. There seems to be a societal misconception that any sort of drug use is bad and leads down a road towards addiction. I, for one, have taken the following oath and encourage everyone I know who uses drugs to take it as well.
The Responsible Drug User's Oath
* I understand the effects of all recreational drugs I take, to the best of my ability. I shall research the neurochemical, psychological, physiological, and spiritual effects, and the legal issues surrounding the drug and its use.
* When taking a drug I am inexperienced with, I shall begin with the lowest dose suggested to be psychoactive by the aforementioned research before progressing to higher dosages. I will measure the drug carefully, with an accurate scale.
* If it is possible that the drug may contain harmful adulterants or in fact be a different drug altogether, I shall have the drug anonymous chemical testing for purity and content.
* I will learn the overdose limits for my own body weight and adjust them for any possible synergistic effects due to diet, prescription or other drugs. I will also adjust for dangerous side effects and my own health condition. After calculating my personal limit, I will stay under 75% of this limit, to minimize risk.
* While under the effects of a drug, I shall not take physical risks such as driving, climbing, swimming, or any other physical activity in which my actions may cause harm to myself or others.
* When first using a drug I am inexperienced with, I shall take it in the company of an experienced user, also known as a spotter. The spotter will remain sober during this experience, and will also have fully researched the drug.
* I shall not attempt to sway, force, trick, or otherwise coerce another person to take any drug; rather, I shall discuss previous drug experiences and research frankly and honestly, allowing all people to make their own personal decisions about drug use.
* I shall defend the rights of others to make educated, responsible decisions about drug use. I shall not support any person or movement that attempts to remove or abridge said rights.
* I shall not allow my drug use to overshadow or disrupt the other important aspects of my life, including social interaction, employment or even other personal pursuits.
* I will also take responsibility for the drug use of friends and relatives, if their drug use becomes dangerous to their health or personal relationships.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by corplinx

These types really remind me of the Lotos Eaters. They are just comfortably numb with no drive. My older brother is one of them and its a hard thing to not just want to ban it and prosecute it harshly.

What do you think of this famous pot-head?

Biographer: Sagan Smoked Marijuana

SAN FRANCISCO ( AP ) - The late astronomer and author Carl Sagan was a secret but avid marijuana smoker, crediting it with inspiring essays and scientific insight, according to Sagan's biographer.

Using the pseudonym "Mr. X'', Sagan wrote about his pot smoking in an essay published in the 1971 book "Reconsidering Marijuana.'' The book's editor, Lester Grinspoon, recently disclosed the secret to Sagan's biographer, Keay Davidson.

Davidson, a writer for the San Francisco Examiner, revealed the marijuana use in an article published in the newspaper's magazine Sunday. "Carl Sagan: A Life'' is due out in October.

"I find that today a single joint is enough to get me high ... in one movie theater recently I found I could get high just by inhaling the cannabis smoke which permeated the theater,'' wrote Sagan, who authored popular science books such as "Cosmos,'' "Contact,'' and "The Dragons of Eden.''

In the essay, Sagan said marijuana inspired some of his intellectual work.

"I can remember one occasion, taking a shower with my wife while high, in which I had an idea on the origins and invalidities of racism in terms of gaussian distribution curves,'' wrote the former Cornell University professor. "I wrote the curves in soap on the shower wall, and went to write the idea down.

Sagan also wrote that pot enhanced his experience of food, particularly potatoes, music and sex.

Grinspoon, Sagan's closest friend for 30 years, said Sagan's marijuana use is evidence against the notion that marijuana makes people less ambitious.

"He was certainly highly motivated to work, to contribute,'' said Grinspoon, a psychiatry professor at Harvard University.

Grinspoon is an advocate of decriminalizing marijuana.

Ann Druyan, Sagan's former wife, is a director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. The nonprofit group promotes legalization of marijuana.

Sagan died of pneumonia in 1996. He was 62.

[The Don]

I would not now, nor would I ever advocate the use of illegal drugs.

However I have a "friend" who, from time to time, will indulge in a little MJ. In order to obtain it, he has to go to a dealer. These dealers are not particularly savoury people and furthermore are increasingly unlikely to stock MJ. Instead they tend to have crack and heroin. This provides a better repeat business.

If all drugs were to be made legal and sold through state monopoly shops.

- The strength and purity could be controlled/maintained
- They could be sold with delivery mechanisms (no needle sharing)
- Usage could be tracked
- Revenue could be raised for treatment programmes
- My "friend" wouldn't have to deal with lowlifes

But.....

- We'd have people coming from all over the world to buy and consume drugs
- Addiction rates may (or may not) go up
- The criminal element will have to find something else to do

I'd like to see drugs legalised so that I could choose not to use them. I understand however the difficulties associated with doing so

[hgc]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


What do you think of this famous pot-head?

Biographer: Sagan Smoked Marijuana

SAN FRANCISCO ( AP ) - The late astronomer and author Carl Sagan was a secret but avid marijuana smoker, crediting it with inspiring essays and scientific insight, according to Sagan's biographer.

...

Sagan also wrote that pot enhanced his experience of food, particularly potatoes, music and sex.
... Potatoes!?!? Typical pothead kookiness. There oughta be a law.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by The Don


- We'd have people coming from all over the world to buy and consume drugs
- Addiction rates may (or may not) go up
- The criminal element will have to find something else to do


1- Not a neccesarily a bad thing. Amsterdam makes squillions out of people who just want to smoke a legal spliff.
2- The Dutch experience is a transient rise in use following legalisation, but that the rate of drug use settles down and in fact goes bellow what it was previously.
3- Like get a job.

[Tmy]

Your forgetting the most important thing. Smoking pot is FUN! And whats wrong with FUN!

If you and your pops smoked a J and started talking politics youd have some of the best (and funniest) father son conversations ever! Theres nothing liek watching C-span while your high.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Tmy

If you and your pops smoked a J and started talking politics youd have some of the best (and funniest) father son conversations ever! Theres nothing liek watching C-span while your high.

Or the O'Rielly Factor. :p

[fsol]

there is a fair amount of stuff to look at here


http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/marijuana/

[Agammamon]

Jacob Sullum's "saying Yes: In Defense Of Drug Use" is a very good book on the subject. Recent publication too.

People keep on about state-run distribution and manufacturing, but does anyone really think you beer or wine would be better if it was made by the state? As a matter of fact can anyone think of any product made by a state that's comparable to private enterprise. Right now the only "legal" source of marijuana in the US is a small government run operation whose product is so poor that legitimate researchers find it almost useless.
Let's not forget that if (in the extremely unlikely case) marijuana was legalized there is already a manufacturing system in place that can guarantee quality and content - Tobacco companies. These guys have much greater incentive (and ability) to meet public demand for quality, potency, and safety (no really) than a government program would. As for "stronger" drugs, pharmecuetical companies already make cocaine, heroin, and morphine (as a small example) for medical use. It wouldn't be a far stretch for them to flex their corporate muscle and take over the white market manufacturing and distribution and push out the (currently) illegals.
As for distribution, those of you who live in US states that have a mandated state-run distribution system can best imagine how bad that would be.

[Charlie Monoxide]

The "war on drugs" is a dismal failure. It seems the only groups against legalizing drugs are prison guards, cops, some areas of the legal industry, and gutless politicians.

I'm heart-broken that Canada tried to decriminalize pot but now it's stuck (I think now dead) in the upper house.

Charlie (no hope without dope) Monoxide

[Agammamon]

Originally posted by The Don
. . .- The criminal element will have to find something else to do. . .[/B]

This is a bit off topic, but if we stopped making vice illegal then the criminal element would be cut off from their most profitable activities and forced into those that your average Joe is not likely to tolerate long (ie murder, theft, extortion). These are the crimes that give OC, or indeed UC, a bad rep in the community and are much harder to maintain profitability in the long run.

[Tmy]

Dont get into lobbing pot in wh other drugs. Theres a big difference tween pot and heroine.

As for the war on drugs. It is a joke. We cant even keep drugs out of prisons. PRISONS!!! A secure place that is basically under martial law 24/7, and they still cant keep drugs out. How can you expect to keep them out of society??

[Luke T.]

Thanks for the links, Cecil. I am not entirely sure they are bias-free, but they are a good start.

I am of three minds when it comes to drugs.

At the moment, the view within me that takes precedence is the one I stated in my opening post, and concur with Cecil's statement:

A second point that needs to be made is the important distinction between drug use and drug abuse. Just as there is a difference between having a glass of wine and drinking a fifth of vodka every night, there is a difference between using drugs responsibly to enhance the quality of your life and being high as a kite all the time. There seems to be a societal misconception that any sort of drug use is bad and leads down a road towards addiction.

I made this point with my dad last night, and that ended the argument. He got so mad we could not continue. We had gotten to the point where I was pointing out that people were being arrested not only for their behavior while high (i.e. murdering, raping, pillaging, stealing potato chips to satisfy their munchies, etc.), but just for possessing or using marijuana. My dad had insisted anyone caught with dope should be forced into treatment and/or jailed. The argument ended when I said, "Should you go to treatment for having one Scotch?"

It was ugly. :(

I think we should still hold people responsible for being a menace if they can't handle their booze or their dope.

So that is my First Mind, if you will.

My Second Mind remembers my days in the Navy before they cracked down on drug use. It seemed like everyone was getting high. Then came Operation Upgrade, and they began an aggressive urinalysis program that continues to the present, discharging anyone who pops positive.

There is no denying the effect for the better this had on the Navy. I, myself, quit partaking of dope for the very reason that they started urinalysis, and I personally feel I came out better off for it.

So if they legalized dope, you would see the use of it skyrocket in the military at the very least. This is something I do not take lightly. I have already seen the Before and After.

My Third Mind is of an Absolute frame of mind. When it comes to personal liberties, there is a part of me that believes you will eventually end up with either total freedom or no freedom. That goes for freedom of speech, the right to possess firearms, and the freedom to drug yourself silly, among others.

But this Mind is not as dominant as it might be in the mind of a Libertarian. I don't really believe it is possible to live in absolutes. While we have freedom of speech, we have placed necessary limits. Libel laws, and so on. While we have rights to possess firearms, we have limits, or can have them. No nukes for your next door neighbors! And while we can have freedom with some drugs (nicotine, alcohol, marijuana), we must also have limits there as well.

While Cecil's links say nicotine is the most addictive drug of all (and as a smoker/alcholic I can confirm that), it does not alter the mind to the point where the person loses their judgement while under its influence. I think the combination of the effects of rate of addiction and sociopathy attached to other drugs makes them on a par with plutonium. Not everyone should have free access to them.

Cecil, I am afraid there is one thing I strongly disagree with you on. It is that "Responsible Drug User's Oath" you took. Oaths are but words in the air to an addict/alcoholic. They have no effect whatsoever. And once a person is under the influence of a drug, they certainly aren't going to remember, or care about, any oath they took.

You have no idea how many times I told myself, "I must quit drinking! I will drink no more!" to no avail.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Luke T.
My Second Mind remembers my days in the Navy before they cracked down on drug use. It seemed like everyone was getting high. Then came Operation Upgrade, and they began an aggressive urinalysis program that continues to the present, discharging anyone who pops positive.

There is no denying the effect for the better this had on the Navy. I, myself, quit partaking of dope for the very reason that they started urinalysis, and I personally feel I came out better off for it.

So if they legalized dope, you would see the use of it skyrocket in the military at the very least. This is something I do not take lightly. I have already seen the Before and After.


Your conclusion does not necessarily follow. There is no reason why drugs cannot be legalized and at the same time, the military (or anyone for that matter) cannot have a policy that no one is allowed to be on duty under the influence. Hence, they can still do urine tests but only for people when they are on duty. If their blood levels are too high, then they can be busted for violating policy. It's no different than being disciplined for being out of uniform.

Now some will argue that the drug stays in the blood for a very long time, to which I will say we just need to determine at what level is performance affected. A responsible user must ensure that they are below that level when on duty.

[Luke T.]

I know quite a bit how the urinalysis test works. It is not as accurate as a BAC test, and is dependent on the frequency of marijuana use by the user. Someone who smokes dope every day and is tested eight hours after use will have a different level of THC in their system than someone who smokes dope every couple of months and is tested eight hours after use.

Also, contrary to myth, you will not pop positive if you are around someone smoking dope. The Navy actually tested people who sat in a room saturated with dope smoke and they popped negative.

A little off topic, but that must have implications for the "second hand cigarette smoke" theories going around.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Luke T.
I know quite a bit how the urinalysis test works. It is not as accurate as a BAC test, and is dependent on the frequency of marijuana use by the user. Someone who smokes dope every day and is tested eight hours after use will have a different level of THC in their system than someone who smokes dope every couple of months and is tested eight hours after use.


And as I implied, if the amount "built up" in the system by the regular user is enough to cause any impairment, then they are certainly justified in taking action. The acceptable level would have to be established beforehand, but there is nothing wrong with doing it.

And it doesn't matter if they took the drugs off duty. If they show up on duty while under the influence, they are responsible. You can't show up at work drunk and claim that you can't be fired because you didn't drink while on duty.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


What do you think of this famous pot-head?


I think he was a very talented person to whom the skeptic community should hold in high honor. I do not however think he should be considered the rule and not the exception.

[Tony]

Originally posted by The Don


However I have a "friend" who, from time to time, will indulge in a little MJ. In order to obtain it, he has to go to a dealer. These dealers are not particularly savoury people and furthermore are increasingly unlikely to stock MJ. Instead they tend to have crack and heroin. This provides a better repeat business.




Your friend doesnt have any dealer friends?

[Tmy]

The irony is that if you and your dad were stoned the debate wouldve been much friendlier.

What bugs me about the drug debate is thais foolish notion that the people who do drugs are all skid row bums addicts that have to swindle their way to the next fixed. This is so false. First the drug business is estimated to be in the billions, skid row bums do not generate that kinda cash. Theyd have to be stealing 24/7 and its impossible to keep that kind of behavior going wh being in hot water rather quickly.

So who is doing the drugs??? EVERYONE!!! There are so many weekend warriors doing coke, weed you name it. From the bagboy at the market up to the richest lawyer in town. Who do you think is doing all this cocain??? Not the poor, its way to expensive. If your poor your not goint to buy top shelf vodka, you buy the s**t in the plastic bottle. Yet that top shelf stuff still sells plenty.

Weve been mislead to believe that drugs are super-addictive and a must have every day. THey are not. even the harder drugs do not grab control of most people.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Tmy
The irony is that if you and your dad were stoned the debate wouldve been much friendlier.

If I ever offerred my dad a joint, he would pull out his hair, rend his clothes, and scream, "I have no son!"

:D

What bugs me about the drug debate is thais foolish notion that the people who do drugs are all skid row bums addicts that have to swindle their way to the next fixed. This is so false. First the drug business is estimated to be in the billions, skid row bums do not generate that kinda cash. Theyd have to be stealing 24/7 and its impossible to keep that kind of behavior going wh being in hot water rather quickly.

So who is doing the drugs??? EVERYONE!!! There are so many weekend warriors doing coke, weed you name it. From the bagboy at the market up to the richest lawyer in town. Who do you think is doing all this cocain??? Not the poor, its way to expensive. If your poor your not goint to buy top shelf vodka, you buy the s**t in the plastic bottle. Yet that top shelf stuff still sells plenty.

Yep.

Weve been mislead to believe that drugs are super-addictive and a must have every day. THey are not. even the harder drugs do not grab control of most people.

I disagree with this. I haven't heard of, or met, a "casual" crack cocaine user.

I admit my father and I both have emotional personal interests in the drug problem. I lost a brother, and he lost a son, to drugs. AIDS, really, from the needle.

My mother and father now run a half-way house, in addition to my dad's regular day job at a Catholic seminary. So he sees the worst of the worst.

As a recovering alcoholic, I perform a lot of service work myself, and have been working as a volunteer substance abuse person in our country's jails and prisons for the last 7, almost 8, years. So I, too, have seen the worst side of the drug and alcohol situation.

I would like to believe that the money we would save by not going after the casual dope user could be put to better use helping/treating/punishing those who abuse drugs. But I was in the military and still remember the promises of the "peace dividend" after the USSR collapsed.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Luke T.


If I ever offerred my dad a joint, he would pull out his hair, rend his clothes, and scream, "I have no son!"



Those old-timers prefer bongs. :D

[Tmy]

Crack is hardcore.. But we are led to believe that if you TRY coke or heroine or X then you will be instantly hooked and turned into a zombie. Then we see as we and our friends experiment that this isnt true. I know lots of people who dabble in coke now and then.

Its best to stay away from the hard stuff and only focus on Pot, cause pot elliminates alot of the arguments that focus on the harder drugs.

Did your pops try the "gateway" argument. I hate that one.

If you really want to get him going just say "since youve never tried pot you really dont know what your talking about." Teetottalers really hate that one.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


And as I implied, if the amount "built up" in the system by the regular user is enough to cause any impairment, then they are certainly justified in taking action. The acceptable level would have to be established beforehand, but there is nothing wrong with doing it.

And it doesn't matter if they took the drugs off duty. If they show up on duty while under the influence, they are responsible. You can't show up at work drunk and claim that you can't be fired because you didn't drink while on duty.

It just occurred to me that this does not negate my original point that demand for pot will increase, at least in the military. And I see no reason why it wouldn't increase in the civilian population as well when those who refrain from partaking because it is illegal will no longer have that moral barrier.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Tmy
Crack is hardcore.. But we are led to believe that if you TRY coke or heroine or X then you will be instantly hooked and turned into a zombie. Then we see as we and our friends experiment that this isnt true. I know lots of people who dabble in coke now and then.

Its best to stay away from the hard stuff and only focus on Pot, cause pot elliminates alot of the arguments that focus on the harder drugs.

Did your pops try the "gateway" argument. I hate that one.

If you really want to get him going just say "since youve never tried pot you really dont know what your talking about." Teetottalers really hate that one.

My dad did try the gateway argument. We did not dwell on it long as we were deadlocked, making it pointless to discuss further.

I don't think "you've never tried it so you don't know what you are talking about" is a valid argument. I don't have to try pedophilia to know it should be illegal.

According to one of Cecil's links, (http://www.drugsense.org/mcwilliams/www.marijuanamagazine.com/toc/addictiv.htm) the heirarchy for chemical dependence, from most to least, is nicotine, heroin, cocaine, alcohol, caffeine, then marijuana.

Nicotine and caffeine do not impair a person under their influence. Heroin, cocaine, alcohol and marijuana do. According to the same link, the order of intoxication, most to least, is alcohol, heroin, cocaine, marijuana, nicotine, then caffeine.

I would draw the line of legalization at alcohol and marijuana, along the same line of reasoning that I think you should be able to own a water pistol, a .45 automatic, and an Uzi, but not a flamethrower or a tank.

[Agammamon]

You might also point out to you father that every symptom ascribed to "hard" drugs today (violence, addiction, loss of morality/inhibitions, instant addiction) was said to apply to tobacco, alcohol, caffeine, and marijuana in their time. Yes, even caffeine has been said to reduce a persons morality. The funny thing about tobacco causing violence is that, from my observation, it's lack of it that drives smokers crazy.

You may have heard of kat or chat, it's a plant that is chewed in parts of Africa for it's stimulant effect. Now mind you it's about as potent as caffeine yet some say it is what fuels the constant violence in these areas.

[jimlintott]

I'm all for legalization of recreational drugs. We should let the medical communtiy deal with addiction. They are much better at it. The legal community can only dish out punishment. I'm willing to bet that punishment has never cured anyone of an illness.

The big advantage to pot is that it is basically produce and is easily recognised. Compared to a non-descript pill or innoccuos looking white powder, you know what you are ingesting. It is no more likely to be adulterated than the produce at the grocery store.

This fact alone makes it safer than other recreational drugs. Remember that we warn young girls to not even drink alcohol in a bar unless they saw the bottle opened or the drink poured. No one wants to have a roofie colada.

[jj]

Well, I guess that one of the few things that I think is as dumb as taking drugs is the laws that keep an entire substory of criminals employed selling them.

I don't want crap in my head, thank you, but I still haven't found any historical evidence for prohibition working in any real sense in any culture, at least for any period of time long enough for society to adapt.

One would think that rational government would realize that the drug laws in this country have one basic effect, they support an entire criminal underclass. It's almost aiding and abetting, sheesh!

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Luke T.


I don't think "you've never tried it so you don't know what you are talking about" is a valid argument. I don't have to try pedophilia to know it should be illegal.



Yeah but pot smoking is a far cry from, a crime that directly hurts other people.

Plus, many anti-pot arguments revolve around the effects of pot on a person. Can you really know its affects if you never tried. Its silly of me to say that sushi doesnt taste good if Ive never tried the stuff.

Logically, jumping off a bridge is not good for you. But I have jumped off bridges, it was fun. And i didnt die.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by corplinx

I think he was a very talented person to whom the skeptic community should hold in high honor. I do not however think he should be considered the rule and not the exception.

Ok, so what about all the skeptics here that hold what you would consider 'menial jobs' and are NOT marijuana smokers? Are they all exceptions as well?

What gives you the right to be so judgmental of others professions anyway? Don't you work in IT? How is sitting on your butt all day behind a CRT showing more drive? I bet your brother burns more calories working in the trades than you do clicking a mouse. I'm a programmer myself, but I don't have any illusions of exaggerated self-worth and I have the upmost respect for folks that do construction and manufacturing. If they choose to smoke a jay after a hard day, more power to 'em.

The idea that drugs 'destroy lives' is one of the most pervailing myths in our culture today. It's totally bogus, people will mess up their own lives regardless and drugs are just one particular vehicle they use to do it. Others choose food, relationships, gambling, etc. Should we make those illegal as well?

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Luke T.


It just occurred to me that this does not negate my original point that demand for pot will increase, at least in the military.

I don't disagree with you. However, why should we care if off duty military are using pot? Especially if they fall into the other restrictions, such as not driving under the influence, etc? That's the whole point of the "legalize pot" crowd. Yeah, they are using pot. So what?

I was assuming that your concern about drugs in the military is that they can affect performance. Undoubtedly before the big crackdown that you described, drug use was not restricted to leisure time only. In that case, yes there is a problem. But if they are not performing under the influence, what they are doing while off duty is not a concern (with the usual caveats about putting others at risk by, inter alia, driving)

[Tony]

Originally posted by EvilYeti

The idea that drugs 'destroy lives' is one of the most pervailing myths in our culture today.

I somewhat disagree. Drugs destroy lives because the government has set up a system where getting caught stigmatizes you for life, thus limiting your opportunities.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Tony

I somewhat disagree. Drugs destroy lives because the government has set up a system where getting caught stigmatizes you for life, thus limiting your opportunities.

Thats not drugs, thats 'drug prohibition'.

[Cecil]

Originally posted by jj
One would think that rational government would realize that the drug laws in this country have one basic effect, they support an entire criminal underclass. It's almost aiding and abetting, sheesh! Not only that, but by cracking down so heavily on the small-scale domestic drug production, the government has forced competition out of the market. The only way to effectively fill the demand for drugs is to concentrate the supply in a few groups large enough to be able to avoid the government imposed costs (the Mafia, columbian cartels, etc). In effect, the government has handed them a monopoly.

Here's an interesting read on the economics of the drug war. http://gsbwww.uchicago.edu/fac/kevin.murphy/teaching/Econ34201DrugWarPaper.pdf

[Cecil]

Originally posted by American
Keeping it criminal favors those who reject the lifestyles associated with it. If you love it so much you'll break the law for it, that's pretty sad, and we have a Darwin effect right there. If it weren't pot, they should make some other small pleasure illegal. The counter-culture will pick up on it, and conformists will avoid it, the result being jail for law-breakers and nice cars for we law-abiding types. I am more than happy to see others put away while I excel, and pot is as good a reason as any other. Would you give up sex if it were made illegal?

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by pgwenthold

I was assuming that your concern about drugs in the military is that they can affect performance. Undoubtedly before the big crackdown that you described, drug use was not restricted to leisure time only. In that case, yes there is a problem. But if they are not performing under the influence, what they are doing while off duty is not a concern (with the usual caveats about putting others at risk by, inter alia, driving)

Purely anecdotal, but most, if not all, of the drug use I saw in the military was done off-duty. Drug use on the job was on a par with drinking on the job, perhaps even less prevalent because it was illegal after all, and why risk it on the job?

But even with recreational off-duty use, that use carried over into the work day. Like alcohol hangovers do. And it was undeniable that the near elimination (zero tolerance policy) of drug use in the Navy greatly improved readiness.

Looking at it from a common sense, big-picture point of view, it seems to me that if you take a work force (military or otherwise) that is operating drug free and then introduce mind altering chemicals, their performance will decline overall.

I suppose if the military was made dry (alcohol free), its performance would also improve despite the fact that there is a zero tolerance policy for being drunk on the job currently in place.

[DrChinese]

Way to go, Luke. Good post.

[fishbob]

It just occurred to me that this does not negate my original point that demand for pot will increase, at least in the military. And I see no reason why it wouldn't increase in the civilian population as well It is possible that alcohol use would decrease as the demand for pot increased. Therefore the only change would be the TYPE of self-induced impairment, not the AMOUNT of self-induced impairment.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by fishbob
It is possible that alcohol use would decrease as the demand for pot increased. Therefore the only change would be the TYPE of self-induced impairment, not the AMOUNT of self-induced impairment.

That is an excellent point!

[Luke T.]

I am curious about something else now and don't know how to go about finding out. What I would like to know is how many crimes are committed under the influence of a drug or alcohol. And what is the ratio in our prisons of users vs. dealers vs. people who committed violent crime to get drugs?

I have a feeling no one knows. No one is tracking the difference between users and abusers of drugs.

[Ralph]

I think the whole "use vs abuse" thing depends upon whether or not the person has the underlying disease of addiction.

Being addicted to a drug is not the same thing as having the disease of addiction. Give just about anybody large doses of morphine every few hours and they will become addicted.

Throw them in a detox, wean them off the drug, and they will generally NOT exibit any furthur desire to resume their old habit.

A heroin addict--who has the underlying disease of addiction.....will tend to drift back to his old ways....despite the fact that he is no longer physiologically addicted. There's a big difference between being addicted to something....and being an addict.

Non-addicts can generally use things like alcohol or pot without disrupting their lives.

An addict will become obsessed over his drug of choice to the point where it affects his life.

"Normal" people will have 2 or 3 drinks and no more and be ok with that. An addict may have the same 2 or 3 (it's a myth that addiction is a disease of weak will power)......but inside--he wants more.

While I think the average individual can use, not abuse pot......give it to an addict and he'll smoke 20 bones a day. The odds are high that his life will be very screwed up. He may just not realize it.


At any rate--I think addiction is a medical, not a legal problem.
Imprisoning users----making people who sit in the privacy of their homes and smoke a little weed on the weekend into criminals.........I think it's a case of the punishment being far worse than the crime.

The war on drugs is a joke and has solved nothing. Go to any NA meeting and you'll see there's no supply problems at all. There's more than enough for all who want them.

If it was my call....I'd be reluctant to legalize things that tend to cause violent behavior or dangerous psychosis......PCP--coke, amphetamines---Rhino tranquilizer. You could probably put alcohol in that category......but we'll leave that the way it is.....prohibition didn't work 70 years ago & it won't work now.

I'd start with pot & the opiates.......and put some of the money being wasted on the "war" into treatment programs for those that want them....

It's a shame that someone who genuinely want to get clean gets a whole 5 days in detox before he gets thrown out due to lack of funds.........

[tamiO]

Originally posted by Luke T.
But even with recreational off-duty use, that use carried over into the work day. Like alcohol hangovers do.

Is that true? I thought marijuana lost it's effect in just a few hours.

You are correct about hangovers. It is annoying that people can work with hangovers from drinking the night before, but get fired for testing positive for marijuana days - sometimes weeks - after smoking.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by tamiO

Is that true? I thought marijuana lost it's effect in just a few hours.


As a former user, I can attest that a heavy smoking session can be felt the next day. It's not so much a hangover, as a residual effect. You feel a little spacy.

This can be problematic if you smoke every day, as the THC will build up in your system and start to effect you 24x7.

[American]

Originally posted by Cecil
Would you give up sex if it were made illegal?

Nope! Is your point that drugs are addictive and I should consider that more? I really wasn't thinking of that aspect. In fact, take drugs out of it altogether. My (re-stated) view is that if you're unwilling to sacrifice the smallest comfort for the sake of peace and civil order, then you're probably something of a threat to society. It's like saying "I don't have to pay taxes while everyone else does, for the sake of paving the same roads I drive on (and didn't contribute a dime)."

Random thoughts. Don't read too much into them...

[tamiO]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


As a former user, I can attest that a heavy smoking session can be felt the next day. It's not so much a hangover, as a residual effect. You feel a little spacy.

This can be problematic if you smoke every day, as the THC will build up in your system and start to effect you 24x7.

I never experienced that. I suppose it affects different people...
differently.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Luke T.


Purely anecdotal, but most, if not all, of the drug use I saw in the military was done off-duty. Drug use on the job was on a par with drinking on the job, perhaps even less prevalent because it was illegal after all, and why risk it on the job?

But even with recreational off-duty use, that use carried over into the work day. Like alcohol hangovers do. And it was undeniable that the near elimination (zero tolerance policy) of drug use in the Navy greatly improved readiness.

Looking at it from a common sense, big-picture point of view, it seems to me that if you take a work force (military or otherwise) that is operating drug free and then introduce mind altering chemicals, their performance will decline overall.


I don't get your point. I have repeated acknowledged that the military most certainly has the right to regulate activity that impairs the ability to perform one's duty. That would include showing up to work with a "hangover" or whatever.

That does not preclude making drugs legal. Just requiring responsible usage. Employers are allowed to have such restrictions (and especially the military, who can discipline you if your uniform is messy...)

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


I don't get your point. I have repeated acknowledged that the military most certainly has the right to regulate activity that impairs the ability to perform one's duty. That would include showing up to work with a "hangover" or whatever.

That does not preclude making drugs legal. Just requiring responsible usage. Employers are allowed to have such restrictions (and especially the military, who can discipline you if your uniform is messy...)

Well, fishbob made a good point that pretty much answered my concerns on the matter.

In addition, the Navy has a policy of no alcohol while at sea. We are one of the few countries whose Navy has such a policy.

So it is a simple matter to have a policy of no dope either. On shore duty, and for the other services, it will be a lot tougher to manage.

I never saw anyone punished for coming to work with a hangover, and a hangover definitely affects performance. Just watch the sailors on a ship getting underway after a port call overseas. :D

They were only punished if they showed up drunk. There were occassions where a sailor drank so much the night before he was still legally drunk the next morning.

Sea story alert!

On my last ship, we had a very large and steep ramp used to load and offload amphibious vehicles that doubled as a gangway to the quarterdeck in port. Our ship's drunkenness policy consisted of the ability of a sailor to walk up that ramp unassisted. If a drunken sailor on liberty returned to the ship and was able to walk up the ramp alone, he was unmolested. If a sailor was so drunk that he couldn't make it up to the quarterdeck by himself, he was sent to medical for his own safety and then assigned a watch to look after him and make sure he didn't choke on his own puke while he slept, and then he was disciplined upon awakening.

The way some sailors walked up that ramp, you'd think we were underway. :D

[fishbob]

Employers are allowed to have such restrictions (and especially the military, who can discipline you if your uniform is messy...) The oilfield is a good example. No alcohol, no drugs when you are on a jobsite. This includes offshore platforms, Alaska north slope, drilling sites in south Texas, refineries. The legality of alcohol and drugs is a non-issue. If you want to work in the oil field (high pay, high risk), you follow oil company rules.

[TillEulenspiegel]

The saturation of tissue is why heavy smokers have elevated amounts of THC in comparison to casual users. THC* is an alcohol and fat soluble molecule and gets stored in the fat cells.

I would like to take a different tack and focus on THC as a therapeutic agent and the governments obsessive ,unreasonable attempt to prohibit it's use.

THC has been shown both by study and anecdotally to be effective in treatment of glaucoma , wasting syndrome in AIDS patients, MS patients, ALS patients and nausea in chemotherapy patients. Physicians have long known this effect and until California passed thier "pot prescription" law , had to engage in "covert" advice for patients in thier care.

Many links and studies here:
http://altmed.creighton.edu/medicalmarijuana/Works%20Cited.htm

Though these are scientific journals and works the, politicalization of the efficacy of THC stands out .
One study in JAMA sites "euphoria and dry eyes or mouth" to be undesirable side effects

Eight states have enacted effective laws allowing marijuana for medical purposes: Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada, Oregon and Washington. Thirty states recognize the medicinal value of it. Yet the fed actively seeks to override these initiatives, by prosecution and actions to revoke thier professional licencess'( doctor's ) . That is hardly an enlightened view. Most of the people in those categories ( with the exception of glaucoma ) are dyeing...we don't want them to be euphoric now do we?

Recreational use can be discussed from many perspectives but does any one really think that a drug that eases pain and suffering in a dyeing person under a physician's care is equal to the threat that the Feds proclaim?



*Tetrahydrocannabinol

Edit :sp and add....
I do not smoke the drug but I do obtain it for my 53 year old neighbor and my sister in law , both have MS. The difference is remarkable.