Marijuana and Mental Illness

[Praktik]

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.

brilliant post

 

[Mirrorglass]

All right, bit. I'll attempt one last time to go through your posts, explaining how you are consistently missing my points. If after this you still believe I'm the one debating dishonestly I'll be forced to conclude we are not speaking the same language, and disengage from this discussion.

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.


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

Well, that is simply untrue. What study are you citing that suggests cannabis has any health benefits? What about the link I provided earlier, detailing health detriments associated with cannabis do you dispute, and with what data?

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.

As you posted this as a response to a post where I was explaining why I consider certain posts offensive, it seems you either don't read my posts with too much care, or are simply looking for anything to ridicule.

Actually, there is ample evidence that wherever governments have re-regulated the drug market - whether it be heroin trials in Switzerland or decriminalisation in Portugal - many harmful effects of drug abuse decline dramatically. Whereas you seem to want to leave the massively profitable drug markets in the hands of criminal gangs thanks to drug laws which demonstrably do not work, have never worked, and never will work. It's total woo.

These are facts that support decriminalization, yes. Yet there are other points that do not; I mentioned a few in an above post.

And it is truly infuriating that you keep accusing me of the acts of criminal gangs. You actually claim I want to have criminal gangs holding drug markets? You dare suggest with seriousness that because I do not believe you should have the right to smoke whatever you want, I must actually want drug violence to happen?

It's an internet forum, and hyperbole is normal. But the fact that you casually make such suggestions is almost incredible. The utter lack of desire to discuss my opinion, the complete turning around of my words is all dizzyingly disrespectful. How can you, even over the web, casually call a person an advocate of countless murders and expect them to not be insulted?

The problem here isn't that we disagree. It's that you seem to think that gives you the right to call me a murderer.

Well, you do. But it makes you a person I truly don't desire to speak with. I promised to go through the rest of your messages, and I will, but your future insults and pointless nonsense I'll treat with the attention they deserve.

That's why I used the example of someone growing it for themselves. I'm not American, in Australia we have relatively liberal marijuana laws, but people still routinely go to jail for cultivation. I'd like you to explain just how you think sending that person to jail, or any other form of punishment you'd choose to discourage marijuana use, is better than them smoking the marijuana they grew for themselves.

I have never said I think you should go to jail for cannabis. In fact I said the exact opposite. In the post you quoted. What about the statement is so impossible for you to understand?

If you cultivate your own cannabis, and don't sell it to strangers or resellers, I really don't care. If your cannabis ends up in children's hands, you should be punished - in this case, I might even go with a jail sentence. I don't think it should be hard to understand why.

Well, did you ever stop to consider this might be more than just an intellectual exercise for some people? That they might get a tad upset at the suggestion that the state should punish them for doing something they know in their very bones is not wrong?

I know, and I don't care. Being emotionally attached to the issue is no excuse for being an ass. You have the right to be, of course, and I have the right to complain about it. None of us will have fun doing it, though.

Translation: "Crikey, you've really got me there, my whole "do no harm" argument just fell in heap once it was applied to something other than drugs that causes massive societal harm, whatever shall I do? I know, I'll just avoid the argument altogether!"

No, it truly means they were idiotic games. Cars produce far, far more benefits than risks, as you well know. And driving recklessly, which is the reason behind most accidents, already is illegal, as you also well know. Your analogies weren't analogous at all, and that was so obvious I've no doubt you didn't have any intention of making a good point. It's what I've mentioned several times before; you simply look for things to ridicule, and generally make very poor arguments.

Well, bully for you! Personally, I don't have the same tolerance for woo, and JREF is a pretty robust forum. I'd say the best advise I could give you here is to man the **** up and grow a pair!

Yes, I'm fully aware of your manners, and of your unshakable belief in the righteousness of your position. You are of course allowed to continue acting the way you do, but I assure you, I won't bother responding to it anymore.

Still waiting for your reply on the societal damage motor vehicles do to society. Or does this moral paradigm only apply to things YOU happen not to like?

Well, that one we already went over.

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

It's always easy to see the faults in others. Of course you never misrepresented me by uttering outrageous lies, for example me being for gang violence. Or demanded that I defend a strawman position I've clearly explained I don't hold.

As to your link; I'm sure it's interesting, and I'm sure if talking to you was less like pulling teeth we could discuss it. But alas, it was not meant to be.

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?

How about you tell me. How many people are killed in Chigago yearly? I don't see why I should do your leg work for you. While you're at it, look up the rates of alcohol-related deaths. But don't expect me to discuss them with you. It just isn't worth 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?

Look, I've no duty to take part in any of this. I originally did so because I had an opinion, and continued against my better judgment because people seemed to want to hear it. I truly should have trusted my gut, as this has been a fantastically frustrating thread to be a part of.

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.

Again with the sentence-pruning. Don't you see any irony in accusing me of not responding to your nonsense when you have to actually edit out parts of my posts so it would look like your response is relevant?

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?

As if I hadn't explained it before. Cannabis is detrimental to ones health, especially so to children, and supplying such a market means subjecting more people to those detriments. It really isn't such a difficult concept.

No, address the point. You say the health benefits of contact sport can outweigh the risks.

I said no such thing. I said they do.

I'm saying that it is an established fact that health benefits of marijuana can outweigh the risks.

As a painkiller for terminal patients, you mean? Other than that, I'm unaware of any facts supporting your claim.

****, 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.

It must be fun to debate when you attribute whatever silliness you like to your opponent.

Firstly, your own personal experience is worth squat. Most people who aren't addicted to cannabis have no qualms about commercial medicine. No, I'm not saying you are - just that that's one explanation for your experience.

And what contact sport are you talking about? Kickboxing can break your nose, but the improved physical fitness will extend your extended life greatly. In contrast, cannabis will do something Ibuprofen would do just as well, and give you all the unpleasant stuff with it.

I don't really have a moralistic dislike of people getting high. I do have doubt over whether it should be legal or not. And I have a purely personal dislike of the tactics you use to make my position seem bad.

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.

If that means you'll stop it with the nonsense, I'm glad.

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.

Yes, this truly could have been an interesting discussion if you had tried to understand what I was actually saying. Well, at least you can tell all your friends how you won a debate against a nazi who liked gang violence and Mexican drug wars, yet was stupid enough to not want to outlaw cars.

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.

No, I truly don't care what you think about my credibility. I've been reminded once again why I try to stay out of these discussions, and while GeeMack did make good points, continuing this simply isn't worth it.


And that's it. I've responded to your posts, making it clear how little I enjoyed the task. Do not feel obliged to respond to this monster of a post; I'm not particularly proud of it, and I certainly don't intend to continue the discussion. If you understood anything about why I was so annoyed by your tactics, I'm glad. If you didn't, at least you'll feel better about yourself. Either way, I'm done with you.

 

[Praktik]

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.

Now this is interesting - I have bulging discs in my spine and that issue did develop after I was a fairly regular smoker - but since it occurred I have been self-medicating with pot to get through my stretches/exercises with more patience and benefit. I do take advil on rough days in addition to the weed.

Can you link to a study about the anti-inflammatory aspect? Its possible this is the underlying reason I feel it helping my back problem (besides just chilling me out and letting me get through my routine un-rushed)

I just got a family doc for the first time in 10 years and maybe if I come armed with a study and my experience I can get a scrip..

 

[Marcus]

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

There is no shortage of evidence showing weed to be less harmful than alcohol, so in my opinion an advocacy of prohibition of it, but not alcohol, based on harm, would be woo.

 

[Praktik]

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.

Me neither. Lots of newbies and highschoolers talking about it too.

Also: as I matured, left high school and became more adventurous with drug use I ended up lacing weed myself (for personal consumption) with cocaine and crystal meth a few times.

You can REALLY taste it! It tastes really, really different and really really bad.

After these experiences, which actually - were quite lovely - I knew I hadn't really ever smoked a "laced" joint.

 

[Mirrorglass]

I realize I'm not in particularly high regard, now, but that's unavoidable. I regret taking part in this discussion, since I knew where it would go. But as is evident, I'm too angry now to discuss this civilly - much as several of my opponents were to begin with - so it's best I withdraw.

 

[Halfcentaur]

I would have given all of Bit Patterns posts to the fire just to see Mirror actually address the points Gmack made.( Sorry Bit) Everything else was a distraction. Perhaps it was just more preferable to go after what Mirror felt was unfair than actually address the heart of the issue.

The most seemingly dishonest example was this idea that we are not addressing the social issues that arise from this issue, when that was exactly what we were touching on the whole time, I thought, until the issue of over emotional responses and defensiveness launched such a tangent.

I don't fault him for being frustrated, it can be a frustrating issue with all the opportunities for misinformation that arise from this topic.

 

[Praktik]

I realize I'm not in particularly high regard, now, but that's unavoidable. I regret taking part in this discussion, since I knew where it would go. But as is evident, I'm too angry now to discuss this civilly - much as several of my opponents were to begin with - so it's best I withdraw.

Hehe well take a deep breath bro... and dare I say, maybe a toke? - and you're welcome back anytime.

I'm sure we can all talk about this without getting all emotional about it - just gotta think and reconsider a bit before hitting "submit"..

 

[Praktik]

I would have given all of Bit Patterns posts to the fire just to see Mirror actually address the points Gmack made.( Sorry Bit)

Hehe indeed (also sorry bit) - geemack's posts on this page I think encapsulated what we were saying extremely well - mirrorglass - pick up from there if you decide to join us again!

 

[Dancing David]

60% according to this (the first I found) article:

"ONDCP published a report in 2006 that said more than 60% of drug cartels’ profits come from marijuana. Testimony to the Senate from both the FBI and DEA confirmed this figure in 2010."

I'll see if I can find the actual Senate testimony.

ETA: Here we go: http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/news/press10/mjrevenue.pdf

Not quite the confirmation I was hoping for, but still goes to show that marijuana accounts for a large chunk of their profits. Either way, legalisation would deny them a significant income stream

Interesting... I am an ex-user, but most of the users I know get it from in the US sources. (Small operations, outside the gang structure.)

 

[FattyCatty]

I never thought of marijuana as very addictive. I certainly had no problem stopping, unlike quitting cigarettes, which took years of trying. I'd like to see your cites, please.

As background, I'm fairly familiar with my country's official medical recommendations, which is where I originally got my numbers. They are evidence-based, of course, but there weren't as many studies cited as I'd have expected.

I believe the 10% number comes from this study from 1994:

Comparative Epidemiology of Dependence on Tobacco,
Alcohol, Controlled Substances, and Inhalants:
Basic Findings From the National Comorbidity Survey

It is somewhat old, but I'm not aware of any more recent studies disputing it's results, and neither are any of the medical professionals in my country who are responsible for writing recommendations.

Here is a review of the literature offering similar results (and yes, also citing, among others, the above article):

Psychiatric effects of cannabis
<snip>

Thank you very much for finding those cites. It was very interesting reading.

According to the 1994 study, cannabis was the next most frequently used drug in the study after alcohol and tobacco. The relative percentages of dependency among users of those substances were: tobacco 24.1%, alcohol 14.1%, and cannabis 4.2%.

I was wrong in thinking that that cannabis wasn't addictive, and I was very surprised that it had a higher percentage of dependency than the other drugs in the study (e.g., cocaine, including crack cocaine, 2.7%; amphetamines 1.7%; heroin 0.4%).

According to the Psychiatric effects of cannabis, the following were the clinical implications and the limitations:

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

• Among those who have ever taken cannabis, 1/10 are at risk of dependence.

• Heavy cannabis misuse leads to the risk of psychotic episodes, and aggravates the symptoms and course of schizophrenia.

• For any psychiatric patient, risk-management and care-planning is incomplete without a thorough assessment of substance misuse.

LIMITATIONS

• The available literature shows a preponderance of case reports and uncontrolled studies.

• Epidemiological findings from one setting cannot be assumed to generalise to other cultural groups.

• It is not easy to determine causal explanations from the studies cited.

Whether or not cannabis causes or contributes to mental illness seems unclear.

I still believe that the problems from legalization of marijuana in the U.S. are less than those that exist under the current system, but I admit I have no evidence for that belief.

<snip>
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.
<snip>
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.
<snip>

I can understand how you would feel beseiged. I wonder if some people are confusing you with Aquila, the OP? And I'm sorry bit pattern didn't get your "it's the smoke" joke.

<snip>
However, I don't agree that people should act hostile just because someone disputes their opinion. I don't act hostile towards people who tell me I'm going to hell, that Americans are simply better than other nations, that all drugs should be legal. Why is the other side of the last argument so inseparable from emotion?
<snip>

I agree with what you are saying and I am sorry if I acted hostile. There is certainly a tendency for some sanctimonious posters to rabidly attack anyone with a dissenting point of view. And anything they don't like is labeled as woo. I have been very disappointed with my introduction to skepticism.

I hope you haven't withdrawn yet, because I do want you to know that, although I may not agree with all that you say, I do believe you have a right to say it.

 

[bit_pattern]

All right, bit. I'll attempt one last time to go through your posts, explaining how you are consistently missing my points. If after this you still believe I'm the one debating dishonestly I'll be forced to conclude we are not speaking the same language, and disengage from this discussion.

We'll see how we go then.

Well, that is simply untrue. What study are you citing that suggests cannabis has any health benefits? What about the link I provided earlier, detailing health detriments associated with cannabis do you dispute, and with what data?

Have you ever heard of medical marijuana?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_cannabis#Clinical_applications

As you posted this as a response to a post where I was explaining why I consider certain posts offensive, it seems you either don't read my posts with too much care, or are simply looking for anything to ridicule.

That's irrelevant really, a response to you complaining about the tone of the debate. I am happy to avoid these discussions and stick to the meat-an-potatoes of the topic if you are.

These are facts that support decriminalization, yes. Yet there are other points that do not; I mentioned a few in an above post.

I'll address them when I get around to reading the latest posts.

And it is truly infuriating that you keep accusing me of the acts of criminal gangs. You actually claim I want to have criminal gangs holding drug markets? You dare suggest with seriousness that because I do not believe you should have the right to smoke whatever you want, I must actually want drug violence to happen?

It's a rhetorical device, you support criminalisation yet these are the outcomes that criminalisation brings, you may not want the outcomes but they are the end result of your favoured policy. It's not that different when you try and tell me that by smoking marijuana I am somehow responsible for children getting access to the stuff, I mean wtf?

It's an internet forum, and hyperbole is normal. But the fact that you casually make such suggestions is almost incredible. The utter lack of desire to discuss my opinion, the complete turning around of my words is all dizzyingly disrespectful. How can you, even over the web, casually call a person an advocate of countless murders and expect them to not be insulted?

Because that's the end result of criminalization, it leads to, surprise surprise, criminals running the market. Now, if you find that offensive, well, maybe you can understand why some of us find it offensive for you to moralise that we should be punished with the violence of the state for doing something that we know to be absolutely harmless.

The problem here isn't that we disagree. It's that you seem to think that gives you the right to call me a murderer.

I haven't called you a murderer. And you have the temerity to accuse others of hyperbole! The chutzpah of it.

I have never said I think you should go to jail for cannabis. In fact I said the exact opposite. In the post you quoted. What about the statement is so impossible for you to understand?

Nooo, you qualified it by saying you don't think people should be jailed for possessing cannabis, which is why I was using the example of cultivation which IS an offence punishable by jail in most jurisdictions around the world. Again, this is a policy you support, whether you want to see me in jail or not, that is the ultimate outcome of the systm you are advocating.

Now, can you begin to understand that the threat posed by drug laws can be very real for som people, so they might find your moralising to be somewhat offensive too?

If you cultivate your own cannabis, and don't sell it to strangers or resellers, I really don't care. If your cannabis ends up in children's hands, you should be punished - in this case, I might even go with a jail sentence. I don't think it should be hard to understand why.

Why on Earth WOULD it? The whole scenario I put to you, in relation to your claims that marijuana was damaging, was someone growing weed for their own personal use and just how you can explain how punishing someone, possibly ruining their life and career prospects is less damaging to them than actually smoking the weed they grew. It''s an issue you have studiously avoided, one raised by a number of people much more eloquently than I can summon, it gets to the heart of you "societal damage" claims. This is something you need to address, you want to have a debate about the societal damage caused by drugs but refuse to acknowledge the societal damage caused by drug prohibition.

And what of it? What if a kid DID get their hands on the weed? Here's a scenario for you: a parent grows weed for himself, his terminally curious teenage child decides to steal some, smokes it and has absolutely no ill effects other than maybe smoking too much and throwing up, suffers no long term damage and decides that he doesn't even like the stuff anyway and swears off it. Now, let's say the authorities find out, the father is jailed, the family torn apart, the child taken away by social services and put into a foster home, is bounced around the system and meets other troubled kids who introduce him to crime and stronger drugs. OK, which is the greater of two evils? Which do you think would **** that kid up more, smoking a bit of refer and getting queasy? or having his family destroyed, be emotionally devastated at the loss of his parent, be introduced to crime and harder drugs? This isn't a hypothetical, btw, I've seen it happen.

I know, and I don't care. Being emotionally attached to the issue is no excuse for being an ass. You have the right to be, of course, and I have the right to complain about it. None of us will have fun doing it, though.

Same back at you. feeling "insulted" at having your opinions challenged is no excuse for whining and playing the victim.

No, it truly means they were idiotic games. Cars produce far, far more benefits than risks, as you well know. And driving recklessly, which is the reason behind most accidents, already is illegal, as you also well know. Your analogies weren't analogous at all, and that was so obvious I've no doubt you didn't have any intention of making a good point. It's what I've mentioned several times before; you simply look for things to ridicule, and generally make very poor arguments.

No, BS, motor vehicle accidents result in something like 40,000 deaths every year in America. Your consumption of oil results in massive environmental and social damage in countries you've never even visited, the emissions you pump out could well be killing children within a hundred years. Drugs have done a lot of good for the world too, music, art, books, computer technology, DNA research; all things that were driven and inspired by the use of drugs you would consider wrong, and that's just the tip of the iceberg. take your PC that you're typing this on, do you know that in Apple's early days you weren't even allowed to WORK for Steve Jobs unless you'd dropped acid? They routinely took marijuana and LSD to think their way through problems. I bet you haven't even BEGUN to weigh up the real benefits against the costs, all you see is risk where the rest of us see immense opportunity

Yes, I'm fully aware of your manners, and of your unshakable belief in the righteousness of your position. You are of course allowed to continue acting the way you do, but I assure you, I won't bother responding to it anymore.

And I'm fully aware of your pompous moralising, and if you choose to avoid having you ill-founded opinions challenged then I won't be at all surprised. You'll be ignoring people like GeeMack while whining about how you are being persecuted by the likes of myself, I guess I'm a convenient whipping boy for you to use to avoid the fact that your arguments are a fine example of woo in motion.



Well, that one we already went over.



It's always easy to see the faults in others. Of course you never misrepresented me by uttering outrageous lies, for example me being for gang violence. Or demanded that I defend a strawman position I've clearly explained I don't hold.

As to your link; I'm sure it's interesting, and I'm sure if talking to you was less like pulling teeth we could discuss it. But alas, it was not meant to be.

Again, this is your strategy of avoiding being challenged, you can whine about being persecuted instead of actually arguing the point.

How about you tell me. How many people are killed in Chigago yearly? I don't see why I should do your leg work for you. While you're at it, look up the rates of alcohol-related deaths. But don't expect me to discuss them with you. It just isn't worth it.

Whoa, way to miss the point. You brought up gang wars as a societal impact of drugs, I pointed out that it is a societal impact of drug PROHIBITION, I'll ask again, when was the last time a DISTILLERY in Chicago went to war over turf? Think about it.

Look, I've no duty to take part in any of this. I originally did so because I had an opinion, and continued against my better judgment because people seemed to want to hear it. I truly should have trusted my gut, as this has been a fantastically frustrating thread to be a part of.

I'd prefer if you didn't, but if you DO them at least address the *********** points and give this "poor-me" victim act a rest already.

Again with the sentence-pruning. Don't you see any irony in accusing me of not responding to your nonsense when you have to actually edit out parts of my posts so it would look like your response is relevant?

Oh, give me a break, you're trying to make out like America is out of control and that kids where you come from can't access marijuana that easily. It's nonsense, you might believe that but that's probably because your so sheltered you've never sen an illegal drug in your life, I bet the teenagers in whichever Northern European country you hail from can.

As if I hadn't explained it before. Cannabis is detrimental to ones health, especially so to children, and supplying such a market means subjecting more people to those detriments. It really isn't such a difficult concept.

Actually, it's doesn't, both the Dutch and the Portuguese experience showed that marijuana use declined after it was decriminalised.

I said no such thing. I said they do.

As a painkiller for terminal patients, you mean? Other than that, I'm unaware of any facts supporting your claim.

Yeah, and that probably goes a long way to explaining why you hold such stupid opinions on a subject you really don't understand that well. I'm pretty sure I provided a link above. Take this as an opportunity to educate yourself.

It must be fun to debate when you attribute whatever silliness you like to your opponent.

Firstly, your own personal experience is worth squat. Most people who aren't addicted to cannabis have no qualms about commercial medicine. No, I'm not saying you are - just that that's one explanation for your experience.

Hypocrisy abounds

And what contact sport are you talking about? Kickboxing can break your nose, but the improved physical fitness will extend your extended life greatly. In contrast, cannabis will do something Ibuprofen would do just as well, and give you all the unpleasant stuff with it.

I don't really have a moralistic dislike of people getting high. I do have doubt over whether it should be legal or not. And I have a purely personal dislike of the tactics you use to make my position seem bad.

Your position seems bad because it is, it comes from a position of ignorance. But you're right, I wouldn't have a clue what would make you ant to persecute drug users, although it is becoming clearer now that you have actually engaged somewhat that it is rooted in ignorance more than anything else.

And, again, read the link for the health benefits. Also, if you actually READ what I'd said, marijuana is MORE effective than any anti-inflammatory I've ever used, and that includes Nurofen, hell it is more effective than Nurofen Plus which has an addictive opiate in it. And kickboxing, lmfao! Have you had a look at the effects multiple blows to the head over long periods has on a person? Seen Muhammed Ali lately? Jesus...

If that means you'll stop it with the nonsense, I'm glad.

It's pretty funny that you prefaced this post claiming that you would address my concerns, instead all you've done is snark and bitch. I don't care much myself but for somebody so bloody precious about being "insulted" at having their opinions robustly challenged, well, I'm laughing at you, put it that way

Yes, this truly could have been an interesting discussion if you had tried to understand what I was actually saying. Well, at least you can tell all your friends how you won a debate against a nazi who liked gang violence and Mexican drug wars, yet was stupid enough to not want to outlaw cars.

Oh yeah, still waiting for even the vaguest of responses to the points raised by numerous people regarding the societal damage caused by prohibition. This truly could have ben an interesting discussion, if you hadn't made the thread all about YOU.

No, I truly don't care what you think about my credibility. I've been reminded once again why I try to stay out of these discussions, and while GeeMack did make good points, continuing this simply isn't worth it.

I can see why you stay out of them too

And that's it. I've responded to your posts, making it clear how little I enjoyed the task. Do not feel obliged to respond to this monster of a post; I'm not particularly proud of it, and I certainly don't intend to continue the discussion. If you understood anything about why I was so annoyed by your tactics, I'm glad. If you didn't, at least you'll feel better about yourself. Either way, I'm done with you.

No, except for a few exceptions you've done your best to avoid the substantive points, instead focusing on the tone of the discussion and, of course, your favourite topic; yourself and your victimisation. What. Evah. Dude.

 

[bit_pattern]

I would have given all of Bit Patterns posts to the fire just to see Mirror actually address the points Gmack made.( Sorry Bit) Everything else was a distraction. Perhaps it was just more preferable to go after what Mirror felt was unfair than actually address the heart of the issue.

No, I agree wholeheartedly.

In fact, Mirrorglass, a challenge for you. I will not say another word in this thread if you actually respond to GeeMack and address his points, I'll bite my tongue and not even BREATHE in your direction if it will distract you from that task.

[

Now this is interesting - I have bulging discs in my spine and that issue did develop after I was a fairly regular smoker - but since it occurred I have been self-medicating with pot to get through my stretches/exercises with more patience and benefit. I do take advil on rough days in addition to the weed.

Can you link to a study about the anti-inflammatory aspect? Its possible this is the underlying reason I feel it helping my back problem (besides just chilling me out and letting me get through my routine un-rushed)

Nah, it's purely anecdotal but, ****, it works for me.

 

[Praktik]

ok cool - A lot of pain I think is you THINKING about your pain - to be honest, I think marijuana's biggest pain-relieving aspect is just getting your mind off it.

 

[Mirrorglass]

Oh all right, I'll do it, since you asked so nicely. But I'm through with you, bit_pattern.

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.

Your post is very well written, as others have pointed out. It also has several good points.

And it misses my point entirely.

But as this has been a long discussion with too many posts by me, I'll assume the fault for it is mine. So let's start over from the beginning.

As I've stated, I've discussed drug legislation on these forums before. I've also made it clear that discussion was no more enjoyable than this one; the parallels are quite striking, in fact, which makes me wonder whether I'm not actually making some mistake myself, causing the discussion to degenerate to the level it does.

But in any case, in that discussion, I was frustrated by a repeating pattern. We would discuss what harm drugs cause, and I would provide some scientific paper or another, pointing out psilocybin is toxic or noting the marked increase in cirrhosis after the prohibition ended. Usually, these would simply be rejected by stating that the damage caused by criminalization was far greater. But whenever it seemed like I might actually have a case, a certain argument came up - namely, that people have the right to do what
they want with their own bodies.

Any harm to society caused by the drug would not matter - all that was important was that the personal rights were respected. As I mentioned before, this argument makes any discussion over drug legislation moot, as no possible argument can go against the notion of personal freedom. And like I said, none of the people I've spoken with would let go of the idea - in the end, what mattered was their personal rights, society be damned.

The issue isn't that simple, of course, as what's beneficial is hardly black and white. But if the discussion is going to end with the sentence - the one I've used to exhaustion by now - any effects to the society are, in the end, completely irrelevant. What motivation, then, do I have to provide any cites for my reasoning concerning the harm to society, if in the end I know they'll all just be ignored?

And of course, my resulting reluctance to take time to explain why drugs could be harmful to society would be taken as proof that they couldn't.

But enough about what I meant. Let's talk about your post.

The first thing you say is the people advocating drug legalization are concerned about the harm caused by the prohibition. Well, call me a cynic, but an interesting pattern I've noticed is that the people invariably seem to be users themselves. It seems to me the motivation is usually not quite altruistic, and this is further confirmed by the abovementioned tendency to dismiss the social aspects when the data doesn't agree with them.

That doesn't mean the problems caused by drug legislation aren't real, of course. You say that cannabis use, even if you only get caught once, can ruin you for life, which is unfortunate and true. You mention unnecessary drug tests which truly don't benefit anyone. You speak of the vast amount of resources law enforcement is forced to spend on something that might not even need to be a crime. And all of that is really and truly a bad thing.

And then you do the same thing your fellows on the issue almost invariably do. You accuse me of passing moral judgment and ignoring the problems caused by prohibition and poorly fitting sentences - without ever stopping to wonder if I actually do either.

I truly wonder - what did I write that to you read as passing moral judgment? Which of my posts made you think that it was my opinion that the current situation is not bad? Was it the part where I conceded that legalizing cannabis might be a good thing, or did the part where I complained of goalpost-shifting by opponents block it out? Is it simply incomprehensible that I might not want to put you in jail, that I'd be quite willing to get rid of the prison sentences and the unnecessary urine tests, while still keeping the substance illegal?

But no, that can't be it - you mention 'folks advocating various levels of reducing or ending prohibition'. So you must be aware of the possibility of lowering sentences without actually legalizing cannabis. So why were you so confident that my opinion was the extreme one, when in the very post you quoted the opening phrase was "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"?

I truly don't know. Perhaps I'm simply awful at expressing myself, or perhaps years of persecution has made you forget there is such a thing as a middle path. Whatever the reason, I earnestly hope that this post might bring us a little closer to understanding.

My position is, as it always has been, somewhere between strict criminalization and total abolition of all drug laws. Perhaps one day it will be acknowledged. Until then, I'll be the arrogant and self-righteous bastard who doesn't care about lives ruined and would control every aspect of your life.

 

[bit_pattern]

ok cool - A lot of pain I think is you THINKING about your pain - to be honest, I think marijuana's biggest pain-relieving aspect is just getting your mind off it.

Ah, but wait! I threw my shoulder out a few weeks ago and was in so much pain I couldn't sleep, no matter how much ibuprofen and paracetamol I chewed, but the next day I copped a sack of primo hydro and was smoking it up when I realised my shoulder just didn't hurt, that night I slept like a baby - that was the first time I'd actually been conscious of it having pain relief qualities (I don't injure myself very often), and it looks like I was right!

ANALGESIC AND ANTIINFLAMMATORY ACTIVITY OF CONSTITUENTS OF CANNABIS SATIVA L.

INFLAMMATION, Vol 12, No. 4, 1988

E.A. Formukong, A.T. Evans, and F.J. Evans

Department of Pharmacognosy, The School of Pharmacy University of London,

29-39 Brunswick Square London, WC11N 1AX, England

Abstract---Two extracts of Cannabis sativa herb, one being cannabinoid--free (ethanol) and the other containing the cannabinoids (petroleum), were shown to inhibit PBQ- induced writhing in mouse when given orally and also to antagonize tetradecanoylphorbol acetate (TPA) -induced erythema of mouse skin when applied topically. With the exception of cannabinol (CBN) and delta-1-tetrahydrocannabinol (delta-1-THC), the cannabinoids and olivetol (their biosynthetic precursor) demonstrated activity in the PBQ test exhibiting their maximal effect at doses of about 100 mcg/kg. Delta-1-THC only became maximally effective in doses of 10 mg/kg. This higher dose corresponded to that which induced catalepsy and is indicative of a central action. CBN produce a 40% inhibition of PBQ-induced writhing. Cannabidiol (CBD) was the most effective of the cannabinoids at doses of 100 mcg/kg. Doses of cannabinoids that were effective in the analgesic test orally were used topically to antagonize TPA-induced erythema of skin. The fact that delta-1-THC and CBN were the least effective in this test suggests a structural relationship between analgesic activity and antiinflammatory activity among the cannabinoids related to their peripheral actions and separate from the central effects of delta-1-THC.

http://www.ukcia.org/research/Analgesic.php

 

[Mirrorglass]

Thank you very much for finding those cites. It was very interesting reading.

According to the 1994 study, cannabis was the next most frequently used drug in the study after alcohol and tobacco. The relative percentages of dependency among users of those substances were: tobacco 24.1%, alcohol 14.1%, and cannabis 4.2%.

A slight correction; the numbers above are actually the percentages of the group with a history of addiction. The numbers for diagnosed addiction at the time of the study are 31.9%, 15.4% and 9.1%, respectively.

I was wrong in thinking that that cannabis wasn't addictive, and I was very surprised that it had a higher percentage of dependency than the other drugs in the study (e.g., cocaine, including crack cocaine, 2.7%; amphetamines 1.7%; heroin 0.4%).

Indeed; there is plenty of false drug propaganda, and not all things, such as cocaine being extremely addictive, are true. Although if you do get addicted to cocaine, you are screwed, while a cannabis addiction can be fought off, should you so desire.

According to the Psychiatric effects of cannabis, the following were the clinical implications and the limitations:

Whether or not cannabis causes or contributes to mental illness seems unclear.

Yes, there's plenty of room for more research. But in my opinion, there's enough data to say the stuff isn't exactly harmless, although the harm clearly isn't above alcohol's, when used in excess.

I still believe that the problems from legalization of marijuana in the U.S. are less than those that exist under the current system, but I admit I have no evidence for that belief.

Lately, I've been seriously giving thought to legalization myself. In the case of cannabis, there are many good arguments for and against, and I prefer to look at both. It would also seem that the US has a lot more problems with this than we do here, which does affect the decision.

I can understand how you would feel beseiged. I wonder if some people are confusing you with Aquila, the OP? And I'm sorry bit pattern didn't get your "it's the smoke" joke.

I agree with what you are saying and I am sorry if I acted hostile. There is certainly a tendency for some sanctimonious posters to rabidly attack anyone with a dissenting point of view. And anything they don't like is labeled as woo. I have been very disappointed with my introduction to skepticism.

I hope you haven't withdrawn yet, because I do want you to know that, although I may not agree with all that you say, I do believe you have a right to say it.

Your input is appreciated, and the fault was largely my own. It's far too easy to get caught up in personal emotions, and being one against a bunch really can mess you up; in that respect, I have to tip a hat to some of our residents with hundred-page threads. It must take some self control to argue against popular opinion for years without getting oneself banned.

 

[GeeMack]

But enough about what I meant. Let's talk about your post.

The first thing you say is the people advocating drug legalization are concerned about the harm caused by the prohibition. Well, call me a cynic, but an interesting pattern I've noticed is that the people invariably seem to be users themselves. It seems to me the motivation is usually not quite altruistic, and this is further confirmed by the abovementioned tendency to dismiss the social aspects when the data doesn't agree with them.

Starting from the top, you're a cynic. Ask the cops, ex-cops, judges, lawyers, emergency dispatchers, prison guards, who are members of, work for, and/or otherwise support organizations like Law Enforcement Against Prohibition if they are all drug users. The answers just might surprise you, or not. Also it looks like somewhere between 5% and 12% of Californians have smoked pot within the last month, yet somewhere around 50% of California voters support legalizing it. If it was only pot smokers who were in favor of regulating the manufacture, sale, purchase, possession, and use of marijuana much the way we do alcohol, only 5% to 10% of us in the US, some 15 to 30 million people, would support ending prohibition. I think you'll find the numbers are much, much higher than that.

You may have noticed, if you were paying attention and not feeling all downtrodden and persecuted, that some contributors to this thread are supporters of ending prohibition and have mentioned that they don't use marijuana. You also might have noticed that other supporters of ending marijuana prohibition haven't even mentioned their use one way or another. It could be that it's only your assumption that " the people advocating drug legalization [...] invariably seem to be users themselves". It seems likely that is the result of your confirmation bias and isn't even remotely true after all.

And as long as your claims about social aspects of marijuana use are actually more tied to the social aspects of prohibition, people might just be inclined to dismiss them. It's dishonest to describe the problems with prohibition and claim those are problems with the use of marijuana. Focus.

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.

 

[BenBurch]

ok cool - A lot of pain I think is you THINKING about your pain - to be honest, I think marijuana's biggest pain-relieving aspect is just getting your mind off it.

Distraction as analgesia is borne out by studies, BTW.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Your input is appreciated, and the fault was largely my own. It's far too easy to get caught up in personal emotions, and being one against a bunch really can mess you up; in that respect, I have to tip a hat to some of our residents with hundred-page threads. It must take some self control to argue against popular opinion for years without getting oneself banned.

FYI, you're doing fine. I think the disadvantage (and emotional reaction) tends to come from being grossly outnumbered and being misunderstood (or misrepresented) by someone in the conversation.

IMO you're fighting an uphill battle on the MJ issue only because it's not actually any worse (or better) than something like alcohol in term of it's physical effects or addictiveness, yet the "penalties" imposed by society are completely different. It reaches a point where the penalty simply doesn't fit the "crime".

From my perspective, it's a matter of where does one draw the line (if at all)? We routinely pull "prescription drugs" from the market based on their adverse physical effects. When exactly is it in the best interest of society to "ban" a particular drug?