Marijuana and Mental Illness

[Mirrorglass]

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.

Ah, so you simply didn't care what my original point was, and prefer to just repeat mantras. Gotcha.

Admittedly, my comment about only drug users advocating legalizing it probably was false, and I'll take that one back.

But if the rest of my post wasn't worth your attention, anything else I might write certainly won't be. With that, I really am done.

 

[Praktik]

Distraction as analgesia is borne out by studies, BTW.

neat!

 

[NewtonTrino]

Ha... I've been down this road with MirrorGlass before. He's simply not rational on this issue. There's not much point in trying to convince him or get him to give you good arguments because he doesn't have any.

 

[Halfcentaur]

I suspected that the study showed addiction in people with addictive personalities. I just cannot believe that cannabis is physically addictive based on every thing I've personally experienced, anecdotal yes, but the studies are far too inconsistent if such a mechanism exists.

It is however habit forming. Just like TV, video games, or sweets. People who use it habitually to sleep will have trouble sleeping when they stop using it for a while, because they are dependent on it's function. people who use it for stress will feel irritable because they are without their coping mechanism. If it's addictive, it should not just effect some people, it should be addictive to all people, just like opiates.

Why have I grown bored of it over the last 15 years and stopped smoking it for years a time. Why have I smoked less and less as time has gone by, even to this day. I rarely think about it for weeks at a time sometimes. Addictive substances create steady tolerances. Withdrawal symptoms grow exponentially severe with every incident of withdrawal. At one time, I smoked over a quarter of an ounce daily, sometimes more, as a silly teenager. You can find a few studies showing it's addictive, but you can find plenty that show otherwise. You cannot do that with opiates.

I've experienced withdrawals from other substances, the addiction to MJ is nothing more than habitual dependence, or else some people have the genetic ability to somehow resist this mysterious addictive quality that only selective studies can demonstrate.

As for pain relief, I've never found it to have that property. Appetite stimulation, enhanced taste and color, anti nausea, if you're going through painful hunger pangs on an empty stomach it will soothe this as well. But never actual analgesic other than a distraction.

 

[Mirrorglass]

Ha... I've been down this road with MirrorGlass before. He's simply not rational on this issue. There's not much point in trying to convince him or get him to give you good arguments because he doesn't have any.

I was wondering when you'd show up. I'm glad to see your arguments haven't gotten weaker since the last time.

 

[Halfcentaur]

I have hope perhaps another fifteen years will see the end of this farce once and for all. When the president of the united states opens a dialogue on this issue, it says a lot to me. With hope, if he manages a second term, some further action may be set in motion. At least the door is opening. Seeing so much favor in a community of hard nosed skeptics says a lot as well.

 

[Michael Mozina]

No, I generally don't perceive much nobility in American politics.

But this particular comment was on the fact that it appears the California legislation is changing largely because of the expected economical impact, not because the opinions have drastically changed. Going back on your principles because you really need the money is not a policy I'd advocate, even if in this case the effects aren't likely to be devastating. What will California legalize the next time it runs out of money?

As a long time resident of the state, I'd say it's a bit more complicated than you might imagine. The attitudes and opinions have changed over time, not necessarily drastically, but slowly over time. The economic conditions of today simply make it important to reevaluate each and everything we do in terms of it's financial effects. It just makes a lot more economic sense to treat MJ as a source of revenue rather than spending millions (billions?) on law enforcement. Why spend money prohibiting alcohol when you can generate huge revenue from it in the form of taxes? Ditto on MJ. That argument may not apply as cleanly to some of the other more addictive and damaging drugs that you mentioned earlier in the thread, and that's where I tend to get squeamish too.

 

[Praktik]

That argument may not apply as cleanly to some of the other more addictive and damaging drugs that you mentioned earlier in the thread, and that's where I tend to get squeamish too.

Still though, there's plenty of room to manouevre on harder drugs. For example, enforcement could be confined to dealers/producers only and small-time possession given a ticket with confiscation, with perhaps some form of treatment offered after multiple tickets.

You can keep heroin and cocaine illegal and yet not treat the end user like a morally repugnant waste of space. You can treat their health issues. You can do other police work to get dealers without having to hang the threat of jailtime on addicted users, which is what is needed if you're going to "roll" anyone up on their source.

At the moment, the end users are stigmatized and forced to use in situations that increase their exposure to AIDS and Hep C (and thus putting the rest of normal society at elevated risk for those diseases) and treated like pawns by law enforcement who see each end user as a potential flip to snag a dealer.

The end user is left with a choice between jail time or reprisals from gangs and I just don't think this is a humane way to treat a health issue.

 

[GeeMack]

Ah, so you simply didn't care what my original point was, and prefer to just repeat mantras. Gotcha.

My "mantra", whether you like it or not, is derived from a little slice of reality. Right now in the US we have a prohibition on marijuana. Right now we also have tens of millions of marijuana users even with the prohibition. To be rational about the situation it seems we have to choose to accept the societal aspects of millions upon millions of people smoking marijuana and the societal aspects of prohibition, or make marijuana legal, subject its use to reasonable regulations, and deal with the societal aspects of that.

Marijuana use and the societal aspects of that aren't going to magically go away just because you wish they would. Sorry. So to be productive about it we must compare the societal aspects of prohibition added to the societal aspects of marijuana use vs the societal aspects of marijuana use if prohibition weren't an issue. If you want to fantasize about a world without marijuana, go ahead, but some of the rest of us would rather work to repair the real world and consider how to best address the real situation to reduce the harm the best we can.

Admittedly, my comment about only drug users advocating legalizing it probably was false, and I'll take that one back.

But if the rest of my post wasn't worth your attention, anything else I might write certainly won't be. With that, I really am done.

The rest of your post was worth my attention, but I thought it best to address one issue at a time. Clearly you aren't interested in a reasoned discussion, since every time someone tries to be reasonable and discuss the issue, you throw a little tantrum and threaten to leave. Well I'm sure I'm not alone in wishing you farewell.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Still though, there's plenty of room to manouevre on harder drugs. For example, enforcement could be confined to dealers/producers only and small-time possession given a ticket with confiscation, with perhaps some form of treatment offered after multiple tickets.

It's more complicated than you make it seem IMO.

Even as an employer, I have always had a pretty "liberal" attitude towards one's recreational drug use. When I managed a security firm in San Diego, I didn't let my employees smoke pot or drink on the job (we used cars, welders and lots of power tools), but there were no drug tests, and I didn't really care what folks did on their free time. For the most part that policy worked pretty well.

Since I started my own software firm however, I've had a number of experiences with employees that simply couldn't create any sort of separation between their drug habit and it's influences at work. I've been forced to fire folks due to their drug addiction to crystal meth and it's overall effect on their work performance. I've watched really intelligent people become completely useless due to their drug use and become enslaved by their own addition. It's a big pity IMO that these types of designer drugs are so addictive and so adversely affect lives, but that is the reality of the situation for many people. The easier it is to get one's hands on those sorts of highly addictive drugs, the more people will flush their lives down the toilet.

In my experience, most folks can handle their "alcohol addiction" (if you can call it that) pretty well. The same can be said for pot and a few other drugs I've seen people do. Unfortunately however I've seen too many bad experience happen on cocaine, crystal meth, and even a few prescription drugs. There are times where I have to ask myself is *THAT* particular drug really doing anyone any good?

The one argument I really can't ignore is that criminalizing the process only creates a "market" that is going to be filled by some criminal element. It does seem better to me to treat the problem as an addiction, and to have some public control of where the drug is sold and to whom.

 

[Praktik]

In my experience, most folks can handle their "alcohol addiction" (if you can call it that) pretty well. The same can be said for pot and a few other drugs I've seen people do. Unfortunately however I've seen too many bad experience happen on cocaine, crystal meth, and even a few prescription drugs. There are times where I have to ask myself is *THAT* particular drug really doing anyone any good?

The one argument I really can't ignore is that criminalizing the process only creates a "market" that is going to be filled by some criminal element. It does seem better to me to treat the problem as an addiction, and to have some public control of where the drug is sold and to whom.

Totally fair comments. Obviously as an employer its your right to sack people for poor performance, even if that is related to an addiction.

All I'm saying, is don't LOCK UP those poor performing employees in jail and give them a criminal record. They're the smallest fish in the whole Drug Ocean - and I don't see what benefit we get from locking up people for possession. After all, even if you caught a bunch of minnows in a pond it wouldn't take too long for their numbers to recuperate - there's always more users out there.

 

[NewtonTrino]

I was wondering when you'd show up. I'm glad to see your arguments haven't gotten weaker since the last time.

Well your main argument is "I don't like drug use so nobody else should either and I can magically wish it away" or something like that.

Prohibition is/has/will always be a failure. It's a cure that's worse than the "disease".

 

[bit_pattern]

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?

I'd say that when the prohibition of a drug causes more damage than the drug itself then the laws are obviously failing. How you could apply this rule across the board I'm not sure but it is plainly obvious that MJ prohibition costs more to society than the harm that comes from smoking it.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I'd say that when the prohibition of a drug causes more damage than the drug itself then the laws are obviously failing. How you could apply this rule across the board I'm not sure but it is plainly obvious that MJ prohibition costs more to society than the harm that comes from smoking it.

I agree.

 

[bit_pattern]

I agree.

I posted this earlier, but probably got lost in all the bickering. It's a policy paper from the Transform Drug Policy Foundation in the UK After the war on drugs: A blueprint for regulation. It is probably the most sensible, dispassionate and rational view on how society should deal with drugs beyond mere prohibition and is well worth the read. It's a shame that Mirrorglass, despite claiming to want to discuss the societal impact of drugs simply dismissed this on the basis that i'd hurt his precious feelings so he wasn't even going to look at i

 

[bit_pattern]

The rest of your post was worth my attention, but I thought it best to address one issue at a time. Clearly you aren't interested in a reasoned discussion, since every time someone tries to be reasonable and discuss the issue, you throw a little tantrum and threaten to leave. Well I'm sure I'm not alone in wishing you farewell.

Amen to that...

 

[Michael Mozina]

I posted this earlier, but probably got lost in all the bickering. It's a policy paper from the Transform Drug Policy Foundation in the UK After the war on drugs: A blueprint for regulation. It is probably the most sensible, dispassionate and rational view on how society should deal with drugs beyond mere prohibition and is well worth the read. It's a shame that Mirrorglass, despite claiming to want to discuss the societal impact of drugs simply dismissed this on the basis that i'd hurt his precious feelings so he wasn't even going to look at i

Thanks for the link. I must have missed it earlier.

 

[The_Animus]

Mirrorglass: Have you read my posts on page 2 and 3? Do you believe I should be in jail? If so why? Do you believe I am suffering negative effects? If so what? Finally for what reason do you feel I shouldn't have the right to smoke pot?

 

[nvidiot]

The argument appears to be one of "If it's illegal, less people use it, so less harm".

This is nonsense. Happy to be corrected though.

 

[Praktik]

after a few weeks of very weak stuff... I am excited to be grabbing exotic, high end stuff tonight...