Marijuana and Mental Illness

[Mirrorglass]

Apparently not if you're going to play games of this nature. I wasn't saying these people have a right to be emotional at all. You were exclaiming how you failed to understand why it makes otherwise rational people respond with emotionally charged responses. I was simply attempting to illustrate why, not justifying it. I see no reason for you to call my maturity into question at all, and I will assume you just made a mistake in your interpretation of my post.

It wasn't your maturity in particular I was questioning, but that of the logic you presented. My apologies if that was not clear.

My intention was simply to point out the other side can have an emotional attachment as well. I truly do not wish to live in a world where crystal meth is available in supermarkets - but that is what several of my opponents are advocating. I was hoping the example would help some see the similarity between "You'd have heroin sold in candy shops" and "You're advocating state violence against me for possessing a plant", and possibly even how neither statement serves a purpose beyond rudeness.

Again, it's not you in particular I have a problem with; do realize that I'm fending off almost a dozen people here.

 

[GeeMack]

Perhaps cannabis truly isn't all that dangerous, and perhaps if it partially replaced alcohol in our culture the net effect would be beneficial to all. But in my experience, drug users, or drug advocates in general aren't usually willing to even consider the societal aspect of the question. To me, the question is what is best for all members of society. To the people I've spoken to, the harm done to others does not matter since they're only 'doing what they want with their own bodies'.

Not considering the societal aspect? Are you kidding me? The folks who are advocating various levels of reducing or ending prohibition are considering the societal aspect. When it comes to marijuana use, the greatest harm done is a result of prohibition, not a result of using the drug.

The societal aspect of prohibition prevents people from getting jobs even at places like hardware stores and fast food restaurants and landscaping companies if they piss in a cup and it turns out they've smoked marijuana. The societal aspect of prohibition has everyone pissing in cups, being more or less required to preemptively defend themselves against an accusation of being pot smokers. The societal aspect of prohibition kicks kids out of colleges or prevents them from getting in if they've been caught with marijuana in their pocket. The societal aspect of prohibition confiscates land, houses, and cars from people who have a few plants growing along their back fence or a bag of weed in their glove compartment.

The societal aspect of prohibition takes parents away from their children and puts them in prison for buying, selling, or owning marijuana. The societal aspect of prohibition eats into the already limited resources of law enforcement, making your life less safe by the way, because cops are sitting around trying to figure out how to discover some people buying, selling, smoking, or simply owning some pot that the cops, and you, wouldn't even know about if they didn't work so hard to find out. The societal aspect of prohibition costs billions of dollars to pay those cops, lawyers, judges, parole officers, and everyone else who is chewing up your tax money to pursue the failed war on drugs.

Everyone arguing against prohibition is considering the societal aspect. It seems pretty self righteous and hypocritical of you to go happily along passing moral judgment, advocating societal control over what people do in the privacy of their own homes, blaming the effects of prohibition on its victims, all the while suggesting that other people aren't considering the societal aspect. It's pretty arrogant of you to accuse others of ignoring the societal aspect while you yourself are neglecting the greater harm, the societal aspect, which is directly caused by prohibition itself.

 

[BenBurch]

Does anyone else feel that going by the logic used that we should be able to classify prohibitionists as mongers of woo?

It has its deep roots in American Protestantism. Carrie Nation and the Temperance Movement were not fact-based, they were religious.

Oh, and it was not just alcohol they had their sights on; They were against all drugs, including tobacco. Some considered even coffee to be a drug. They were against prostitution.

Most people are unaware that in the 19th century, drugs and prostitution were legal in most of the United States.

So, when you see people gunned down in drug gang violence, when you hear of an abusive pimp holding teenage girls hostage, when you hear of a marijuana dealer dying of HIV he acquired in a prison rape, you can thank the Temperance Movement and their modern representatives like MirrorGlass.

 

[Mirrorglass]

^^ What he said [qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/images/icons/icon14.gif[/qimg]



No, those things are overwhelmingly caused by drug laws. If marijuana was legal and the government regulated the market then it would have a much better chance of keeping drugs away from children. And as for drug wars, well, you tell me last time whiskey-barons lit up the streets of Cicero with Chicago-typewriters.

Of course they are. People buying drugs has nothing to do with it.

This is something I always have trouble with. The state is responsible for indirectly helping drug cartels in Mexico, yet the drug users who directly buy from them are somehow okay?

I just don't see how you could credibly claim to care about Mexico if you buy mexican drugs anyway.

Yeah, you could start by actually addressing the points raised.

Dude, there are like a dozen of you here! Do you truly feel some smug satisfaction when six people respond to me simultaneously, all shifting the discussion into different directions, and it takes me time to answer them all?

If I truly did miss a point of yours, feel free to point to it.

 

[bit_pattern]

My intention was simply to point out the other side can have an emotional attachment as well. I truly do not wish to live in a world where crystal meth is available in supermarkets - but that is what several of my opponents are advocating.

Now your resorting to the misrepresentation, the worst kind of intellectual dishonesty. The real problem here is that you just aren't listening, you say you want to have a dispassionate debate but then you stick your fingers in your ears and go 'lalalala'.

Here, if you want my views on how drugs like methamphetamine should be regulated then have a read of this: After the War on Drugs: A Blueprint for Regulation

 

[Mirrorglass]

In high school I needed to get someone older to buy my tobacco and alcohol. SOmetimes it worked out for us sometimes it didnt.

If I wanted weed I'd ride my bike to the park and buy it from a peer.

Exactly.

Same here. At lunch behind the convenience store by the park I could find 5 people selling cannabis when i was in high school. Alcohol was something we didn't even bother with most of the time from the difficulty of finding someone.

Well, that's certainly very different to where I'm from. One must remember, of course, that I never claimed I believed America was doing a particularly good job when it comes to drug control. On the other hand, I'm impressed if underage drinking truly isn't an issue there.

 

[bit_pattern]

Of course they are. People buying drugs has nothing to do with it.

This is something I always have trouble with. The state is responsible for indirectly helping drug cartels in Mexico, yet the drug users who directly buy from them are somehow okay?

I just don't see how you could credibly claim to care about Mexico if you buy mexican drugs anyway.

Because if the drugs weren't illegal then there'd be no profit motive for violent gangs to profligate. People are going to buy drug regardless of what happens, if the market was regulated then the state could minimise the harm caused by drugs. Is that really so hard to understand? Also, answer the question, when was the last time the streets of Chicago were awash with blood as distilleries battle it out for turf?

Dude, there are like a dozen of you here! Do you truly feel some smug satisfaction when six people respond to me simultaneously, all shifting the discussion into different directions, and it takes me time to answer them all?

If I truly did miss a point of yours, feel free to point to it.

I'm saying generally, rather than focusing on the tone of the discussion, or insinuating that other people are not being "adult" is a pointless waste of time that just antagonises everyone. How about simply addressing the points raised instead of dismissing them out of hand?

 

[bit_pattern]

Well, that's certainly very different to where I'm from. One must remember, of course, that I never claimed I believed America was doing a particularly good job when it comes to drug control..

Oh, don't give me that crap, I've been to Europe and there isn't a big city there where I wouldn't be able to score just about anything I wanted from a street corners within a matter of hours of arriving. I dunno, I haven't been to Scandinavia, granted, maybe it IS the only place on the planet where drugs AREN'T available on certain street corners of every big city, but I doubt it.

 

[Mirrorglass]

A. Not if you grow your own.

B. If it were legal then supporting the black market wouldn't be an issue.

Logic 101 FAIL.

Indeed, slipping in the word 'black' changes the meaning of the statement. Unfortunately, it doesn't invalidate the point I actually made.

I believe KNOW that marijuana can have health benefits far superior to the risks.

So this is not a discussion, but a sermon? All right, we can end the facade here.

Maybe you should start following your own advise when it come to the tone of argument? I dunno, with this passive aggressive thing you have going on it's starting to sound pretty hypocritical.

This is pointless. You aren't even trying to follow what I'm actually saying. Enough with this.

 

[bit_pattern]

Indeed, slipping in the word 'black' changes the meaning of the statement. Unfortunately, it doesn't invalidate the point I actually made.

OK, what is it about the marijuana market that you object to? What about the Californian medical marijuana market, run by the most harmless hippies you could ever imagine. What's so inherently bad about it?

So this is not a discussion, but a sermon? All right, we can end the facade here.

No, address the point. You say the health benefits of contact sport can outweigh the risks. I'm saying that it is an established fact that health benefits of marijuana can outweigh the risks. ****, I know from my own personal experience that there is no commercially available anti-inflammatory that comes even close to providing the relief marijuana does. Why is dangerous contact sport OK when it can have health benefits, but marijuana isn't when it can also have health benefits? The ONLY difference is your moralistic dislike of people getting high.

This is pointless. You aren't even trying to follow what I'm actually saying. Enough with this.

And you're simply not listening to anything anyone else says, th amount of arguments in this thread I have sen you simply dismiss as "childish" or "insulting" or whatever else you can come up with to avoid addressing the point. Enough indeed.

 

[Mirrorglass]

Yes, we can go on forever.



I am still not certain what is exactly you're stance is really.

Well, I truly am glad you asked. Most times people don't even bother to do that.

It's pretty clear that what we're talking about is not "just poison". Are you saying that things are fine, are you conscious of a need for reform of any kind?

I think the American system is woefully inefficient, and there are a lot of problems in other countries as well. I don't agree that the only possible solution is the total abolition of all drug prohibitions. I think the societal effects are worth discussing, but am greatly annoyed by the fact that drug advocates always hold me directly responsible for all possible drug-related suffering if I so much as mention the fact that some drugs are harmful, or that they should be regulated, god forbid.

Are you trying to debate the dangers? So far in the exchanges I've failed to detect a base other than that you don't approve of the use of these substances.

The only thing I've actively talked about here is the fact that most discussion is moot if one side believes personal freedom trumps everything and the other has utilitarian beliefs - something that has been repeatedly demonstrated here.

And I'm never going to get the chance to actually talk about my own opinions, either - I will be stuck responding to the same old comments about mexican drug cartels and young lives ruined by the American legal system until I'm fed up with it and leave the thread, at which point my opponents will celebrate another victory over the evil tyrants.

I apologize for my increasing rudeness, but this whole thread is simply too exhausting.

 

[bit_pattern]

the fact that some drugs are harmful, or that they should be regulated

They're not regulated, that's where the majority of societal problems stem from, the fact that criminalisation by its very nature means that drugs are left to criminals, sold in unregulated markets with absolutely no quality control. I am a keen advocate fo the re-regulation of drugs, I've even provided you a link to a blueprint for what drug regulation might look like. Read it sometime, you might find yourself pleasantly surprised and realise that there are other and better way of dealing with the societal problems of drugs by criminalising them and pretending they don't exist.

The only thing I've actively talked about here is the fact that most discussion is moot if one side believes personal freedom trumps everything and the other has utilitarian beliefs - something that has been repeatedly demonstrated here.

And I'm never going to get the chance to actually talk about my own opinions, either - I will be stuck responding to the same old comments about mexican drug cartels and young lives ruined by the American legal system until I'm fed up with it and leave the thread, at which point my opponents will celebrate another victory over the evil tyrants.

Such a martyr You've gone out of your way to avoid discussing the societal aspect of it, I suggest you respond to GeeMack's excellent post if you want to reclaim any semblance of credibility in this thread.

 

[Mirrorglass]

This is the JREF, I have had to toughen my responses, emotionally speaking. And yes, it is hard not to respond, I get yellow cards occasionally and have been suspended, because of emotional response on my part.

Your argument seems to be a legalistic one which assumes that there is harm in marijuana use solely because of its legal status, which is fine. Just not a very good case, speeding in cars threatens many more lives, causes death and dismemberment, yet the penalties are much higher.

That is one of the problem of legalistic arguments, they are based solely upon legislation and not always rational, I support the laws in most cases.

Well no, that's not really my argument at all. My argument is that while there is a reasonable doubt over whether cannabis should be legal, the same is not true for most illegal drugs. I also disagree that cannabis should obviously be legal - and I hate the fact that whenever I mention that, I'm accused of being a nazi.

However the harm from mj is much smaller than other areas.

there is no purpose for beer other than getting a buzz.

Well, a pint a day does seem to have health benefits. But yes, you are essentially correct - yet criminalizing beer does not seem very possible to me. Saying I'm inconsistent for not campaigning against alcohol is about as reasonable as saying I'm inconsistent for not campaigning against the sun's UV rays. Yes, they are harmful, but what exactly do you propose I do about it that isn't already being done?

That is a common measurement of harm in a medical setting the LD 50.

Nope, if addiction was the sole reason for banning it then tobacco is much worse.

Well, good thing then it's not the sole reason. And as I've mentioned before, if it were up to me, tobacco wouldn't be legal either.

But then why aren't the penalties the same for speeding? Much more harm caused there?

I didn't make the American laws, and I don't understand why I should be obliged to defend them just because I don't think the concept of outlawing drugs isn't in itself, a bad thing.

I am not arguing benefit, I am arguing that the basis of the legal ban on mj was historically racist, and the continuing ban is foolish. The basis of the legal status of mj is all hyperbole.

I am not arguing any more than that.

Perhaps one day we'll get to discussing that. But with "I've a right to do whatever I want with my own body" on the table it's pretty pointless.

But, if you do agree that heroin should be illegal, we are not so far separated in our opinions.

 

[Mirrorglass]

The comparison to the prohibition of alcohol and it's connection the flourishing of organized crime seems like a good example to me. Do you acknowledge that at least this is more than an assertion?

Of course it carries weight. But it doesn't take into account all aspects of the problem, either. It simply isn't enough to state that the net effect of the prohibition was positive.

 

[Mirrorglass]

There's been a lot of conversations going on so I'll cut you some slack my Scandinavian friend..

But you were saying that legalization advocates don't even consider societal harm.

And I replied by saying that those in this very thread have couched their legalization arguments very much in the language of societal harm: the reduction of harm to society they see through non-prohibitionist stances. You were saying that these people didn't think about societal harm at all. Which is just not true.

I think about the racial/class bias in policing drug use, the opportunity cost of the billions spent on enforcement rather than health care, the ability to control point of purchase and distribution, assuring a level of quality in the product according to set standards, etc etc etc these have been mentioned in this thread.

You then asserted that prohibition was a societal benefit (something that is "best for all members of society"), which is what I asked you to support.

This discussion seems to be shifting constantly. The previous post was about me having to prove my opinions empirically, and now we're back to my original statement about disregarding societal effects.

I'll admit there is discussion of societal effects. There are references to drug violence in Mexico and alcohol violence during the prohibition, there are references to the broken legal system and the harm it causes, and many others. It seems drug advocates are very concerned indeed of the society.

Yet I've been here before. I've pointed out the liver cirrhosis rates in the US quadrupled after the prohibition ended. I've pointed out the gangs are still there, having found different sources of income. I've pointed to the situation with khat in Yemen, and several other arguments that speak against drug legalization.

And the response is always the same. It doesn't really matter, since people have the right to do what they wish with their own bodies. It turns out the societal benefits were just a bonus, and the true reward was simply legal cannabis.

I also don't recall making the assertion that prohibition is a societal benefit, although did say I've some reason to think it could be. And like I've said many times, it would be interesting to have a good debate over it, really trying to dig out the different variables.

But as long as the important thing is a person's right to drugs, that just isn't going to happen.

 

[GeeMack]

The only thing I've actively talked about here is the fact that most discussion is moot if one side believes personal freedom trumps everything and the other has utilitarian beliefs - something that has been repeatedly demonstrated here.

It's been mentioned before, but it seems another reminder is in order. People have made comments on the value of personal freedom, but for you to claim that "one side believes personal freedom trumps everything" makes you a liar. If you don't knock off the dishonest representation of the position taken by the others in this discussion, you're obviously not likely to get a meaningful dialog.

Also, several times people have asked you to support your position with something other than arguments from ignorance and incredulity. So far you've been unwilling or unable to do that. Don't blame us if all you've got is your unsubstantiated opinion. Substantiate it already. Explain how the harm of using marijuana is greater than the harm caused by prohibition.

And I'm never going to get the chance to actually talk about my own opinions, either [...]

Jesus H. Christ, that implication is dishonest, too. You're not being persecuted. Nobody taped your hands together. Oh, and if you haven't noticed, other than getting pissy with people for pointing out your lack of an actual argument, your own opinions is all you've talked about.

[...] I will be stuck responding to the same old comments about mexican drug cartels and young lives ruined by the American legal system until I'm fed up with it and leave the thread, at which point my opponents will celebrate another victory over the evil tyrants.

The Mexican drug cartels and the young lives ruined by the American legal system are societal aspects of prohibition, which apparently you'd prefer we not discuss. Yet in your zeal to defend your self righteous attitude about how other people's lives should be managed, you keep trying to dishonestly claim that the harm caused by prohibition is the harm caused by using marijuana.

Try it like this...

With prohibition we have the harm caused by the use of marijuana and the harm caused by prohibition. Those societal aspects, those harms are the following:​

Then do this one...

Without prohibition we have the harm caused by the use of marijuana. Those societal aspects, those harms are the following:​

Now compare the results of your lists and tell us which situation is causing the greater harm to society.

 

[bit_pattern]

I'm still trying to get him to respond to your last excellent post, GM, I have a feeling it will be studiously ignored though, instead we'll hear more about poor, poor Mirrorglass having to put up with personal freedom arguments, and how it is just all so pointless talking with people who put their right to use drugs above and beyond the societal harm caused by drugs and blame him personally for American laws etc etc etc

 

[JonathanS]

I think the biggest (and maybe only) problem with marijuana is when it is laced with something else.

Last month I smoked some evil hash and 3 hours later ended up in the hospital hooked up to an EKG machine, Valium (i think) and vitamin B because my heart rate was around 180 and stayed that way for a few hours. It was the result of some unknown component that triggered a rapid heartbeat and supposedly resulted in something along the lines of a panic attack. I have been a low key casual smoker (once, twice a month) for years and this has never happened to me before.

If pot is legalized, people can grow their own bud and know exactly what they're smoking. I have never smoked homegrown natural bud that caused any nasty side effects.

 

[bit_pattern]

I think the biggest (and maybe only) problem with marijuana is when it is laced with something else.

Last month I smoked some evil hash and 3 hours later ended up in the hospital hooked up to an EKG machine, Valium (i think) and vitamin B because my heart rate was around 180 and stayed that way for a few hours. It was the result of some unknown component that triggered a rapid heartbeat and supposedly resulted in something along the lines of a panic attack. I have been a low key casual smoker (once, twice a month) for years and this has never happened to me before.

If pot is legalized, people can grow their own bud and know exactly what they're smoking. I have never smoked homegrown natural bud that caused any nasty side effects.

Nah, not laced, at least not likely (for starters, anything worth lacing weed with is more expensive than weed anyway so unless you payed an unusually exorbitant price for the stuff it is highly unlikely to have been laced, although I guess without a toxicology report I guess you'll never know for sure 1005 it wasn't laced, but I doubt it would have ben), sounds more like you just had a plain old case of panic anxiety, and believe me it's not that uncommon with weed, especially high potency, high-THC to CBD ratio weed. If you're susceptible to panic-anxiety then psychotropic substances can and will bring it out in you, I've seen it happen before. If you don't have any problem with an addictive personality I'd recommend having a chat with your doctor about maybe getting prescribed benzodiazepines and just keeping them handy in case you ever have another attack, drug induced or not. I certainly wouldn't recommend anyone use benzo's to counteract negative effects from recreational drugs (at least not on JREF ) but they DO work

 

[Halfcentaur]

In 15 years I've never met a single person who actually found some cannabis that was laced with anything noticeable, or met anyone who knew anyone else. It always seemed like more ridiculous DARE propaganda to me. Then again, I and those I associate with make it a point not to go through the shadier elements of distribution. It's odd that someone would spend the money for an extra substance just to lace another substance without charging you extra for it. It's like being given something for free. Perhaps somewhere in the line of distribution there was a break down of communication, or someone was playing a trick on someone else. That must have been a terrifying situation.

I think the stupidest example of the lacing story comes from supposed hits of LSD laced with other drugs. It's not logical to me, as LSD is given in micrograms, and the substances cited as being added are not psychoactive at those levels at all.