Marijuana and Mental Illness

[bit_pattern]

I'll try and explain my position more clearly later tonight.

I'd like you to answer my question when you get a chance, explain how you can think that smoking marijuana is more harmful than punishing people for smoking it

 

[dtugg]

I assume you're referring to things such as skydiving and prozac? The first I don't believe causes any harm to anyone but yourself, and I am against liberal use of the second.

And who am I harming by smoking weed?

Was there some other 'thing' I should be against before I'm allowed to consider whether cannabis should be legal?

Do you think that foods high in sugar and/or fat should be banned? How about having unprotected sex? How about contact sports?

And if you truly don't recall.. sigh. Well, here goes. I believe that 'I have the right to do whatever I want with my own body' doesn't extend to deliberately harming oneself,

Why? Who do you think owns your body? The state? And of course you have that pesky little fact to deal with that marijuana (and drugs in general) will probably not cause harm unless done to excess.

Admittedly, you didn't take the tone that annoys me. I apologize for my generalization.

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?

I didn't want to get into this bog again, but I suppose I'll have to. I'll try and explain my position more clearly later tonight.

I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that you would make us criminals simply for possessing a plant.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that you would make us criminals simply for possessing a plant.

"Why is a vegetable something to hide?"

 

[Mirrorglass]

Mirrorglass - What do you think is more detrimental to one's health and lifestyle: smoking a bit of reefer occasionally, perhaps getting a little paranoid after giggling for 20 minutes, maybe indulging in a bit of gardening in one's backyard to supply one's needs without patronising criminal gangs; or being locked down in a Federal Penitentiary, having one's employment prospects effectively severed, losing things like voting privileges, all for simply growing a plant that nature provided us with?

Seriously?

Can you honestly say that you think smoking weed is worse for a person than being prosecuted and punished for smoking weed?

It may be that you truly believe the problem is about what's best for the drug user, but I assure you, that is not the case.

I can accept that people are allowed to destroy their own bodies. I do believe there should be some control, as allowing a mentally ill person to kill themselves does not strike me as moral. But of course drug addiction alone isn't always severe enough to call a mental illness. So no, there's no way I could morally forbid you from doing drugs.

But you aren't just doing drugs. You are also buying them, or producing them, and by so doing contributing to the vast supply of drugs, large portions of which trickle down to children and unaware adults as the sellers seek new markets. You are very likely also introducing your friends to drugs, and while they likely are consenting adults, you are also explaining to them, or at least implying that it isn't really addictive and doesn't really have any harmful side-effects - which sometimes results in very unpleasant surprises for them. Yes, only a small percentage of these people get addicted and experience unpleasant effects, but over the years, that adds up to a lot of misery.

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'.

Being told your ideas are ridiculous isn't an insult. Eddie Dane made a very good point and you chose to dismiss by saying he wasn't "debating fruitfully", which is easily as "insulting" as saying your ideas are ridiculous.

It would seem you didn't read my post very carefully. I said the issue is too fundamental to be debated fruitfully, and it's unlikely anyone will change their mind regarding it. The comment had nothing to do with what Eddie did or did not do.

And just to clarify; do you truly think that the series of posts above by Ben, Eddie, praktik and tugg, where I was compared to some Laputan government and the Cultural revolution, then called a well-meaning fool and sarcastically told my idea is ridiculous, was not insulting? If so, perhaps I am over-sensitive.

But to elucidate what bothers me with the posts; I could write hyperbole about how drug advocates want to put crystal meth next to snickers bars in supermarkets, which would be perfectly analogous to Eddie's post #141. I could make a post similar to Ben's #142 by saying: "Two words: Yemen and khat". I could emulate tugg in post #145 by saying "You mean you can't think of an argument for drug use besides 'I need my buzz'?". And I could adopt the style of Praktik in #146 and write an understanding rant about how sorry I feel for drug users who simply don't understand what they are doing to their bodies.

Perhaps none of that would offend any of you. If so, you are more mellow than I am. But I prefer debating in a neutral tone, and while I don't truly expect the same from opponents, I am hesitant to enter a debate when it's clear emotional appeal, sarcasm, hyperbole and comparisons to Hitler are the tools of choice.

 

[Praktik]

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'.

Well you must be referring to users who haven't been talking to you in this thread, because I think it's been pretty clearly said that both societal AND personal harm are increased with prohibition.

Perhaps you can show empirically how prohibition provides a benefit to society?

 

[Mirrorglass]

And I insulted you when?

Get over yourself, this is the JREF not the sunday school playground.

I don't recall discussing the issue with you. Until this post, where you compare me to a Sunday school child, that is. Make of that what you will; as I've said, perhaps I'm over-sensitive. Please understand; being alone in one's opinion when a half-dozen people argue against you in condescending tones can be a stressful situation.

Maybe you haven't shown the benefit to the common good and just put a [insert some lacking reason] there, what 'greater good' comes from the prohibition on mj?

It is, of course, a question of what harm would come from allowing it. And that truly isn't the point, anyway; discussing the harm or benefit to society won't go anywhere as long as one side can always fall back to "Well, it doesn't matter; I can do whatever I want with my own body."

It does less damage than many commonly available drugs. (It does not cause cirrhosis of the liver)

I don't condone the misuse of those either, and those commonly available drugs generally serve a purpose beyond giving a buzz. There are problems, too, of course, and I'm all for working against them.

It is less lethal than many OTC drugs. (MJ has no known lethal dose.)

Which is quite irrelevant. I never claimed people die from cannabis overdose. And no, I don't condone taking lethal doses of other pharmaceuticals, or making it legal to easily acquire such doses.

It is less addictive that nicotine or alcohol.

Yet still addictive, which is the point.

Compared to pescription drug abuse, mj use is a small fraction.

And a lot more people die in traffic accidents. That doesn't mean the smaller problem should just be ignored.

But yes, we can discuss whether or not legalizing cannabis might benefit everyone - if you agree not to fall back on "Well, I have the right to use it anyway" if it starts to seem like there actually are harmful effects.

 

[bit_pattern]

It may be that you truly believe the problem is about what's best for the drug user, but I assure you, that is not the case.

Wait a sec. Just earlier you were arguing that drug users need to be saved from themselves, now I want you to explain how, say, locking up someone who has grown marijuana for themselves is better for that person than them smoking that marijuana. Otherwise you whole argument goes to pot (boom boom)

I can accept that people are allowed to destroy their own bodies. I do believe there should be some control, as allowing a mentally ill person to kill themselves does not strike me as moral. But of course drug addiction alone isn't always severe enough to call a mental illness. So no, there's no way I could morally forbid you from doing drugs.

Well, yes there is, by supporting the prohibition status quo, which you are doing.

But you aren't just doing drugs. You are also buying them, or producing them, and by so doing contributing to the vast supply of drugs, large portions of which trickle down to children and unaware adults as the sellers seek new markets.

And when you drive a car you are contributing to ecological degradation, African corruption and even murder, if you look at places like Nigeria. When you wear a pair of sneakers you are condoning the exploitation of children in third world countries. Whenever you throw away plastic some of it ends up in the oceans and kills dolphins. I demand all of your actions be made illegal! You are hurting people all the time and you aren't even aware of it!

You are very likely also introducing your friends to drugs, and while they likely are consenting adults, you are also explaining to them, or at least implying that it isn't really addictive and doesn't really have any harmful side-effects - which sometimes results in very unpleasant surprises for them. Yes, only a small percentage of these people get addicted and experience unpleasant effects, but over the years, that adds up to a lot of misery.

My friends don't need any introducing thanks for your concern though, at thirty years old you can sleep soundly knowing that any friends of mine who make choices as consenting ADULTS made those choices many, many years ago.

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'.

Riht-o, so when are you going to advocate alcohol also be prohibited by law? A little consistency would go a long, long way. And what about all those other things that cause societal problems? I guarantee you that motor vehicles are a thousand times more destructive than marijuana to society (have you ever known anyone involved in a serious road trauma?), so I trust you'll be advocating that we prohibit motor vehicles too?

It would seem you didn't read my post very carefully. I said the issue is too fundamental to be debated fruitfully, and it's unlikely anyone will change their mind regarding it. The comment had nothing to do with what Eddie did or did not do.

And just to clarify; do you truly think that the series of posts above by Ben, Eddie, praktik and tugg, where I was compared to some Laputan government and the Cultural revolution, then called a well-meaning fool and sarcastically told my idea is ridiculous, was not insulting? If so, perhaps I am over-sensitive.

But to elucidate what bothers me with the posts; I could write hyperbole about how drug advocates want to put crystal meth next to snickers bars in supermarkets, which would be perfectly analogous to Eddie's post #141. I could make a post similar to Ben's #142 by saying: "Two words: Yemen and khat". I could emulate tugg in post #145 by saying "You mean you can't think of an argument for drug use besides 'I need my buzz'?". And I could adopt the style of Praktik in #146 and write an understanding rant about how sorry I feel for drug users who simply don't understand what they are doing to their bodies.

Perhaps none of that would offend any of you. If so, you are more mellow than I am. But I prefer debating in a neutral tone, and while I don't truly expect the same from opponents, I am hesitant to enter a debate when it's clear emotional appeal, sarcasm, hyperbole and comparisons to Hitler are the tools of choice.

Yeah, you are definitely too thin skinned. I dunno, some people find it offensive that you would advocate using the violence of the state to punish them for choosing to do something that is essentially harmless. I mean, would you be a but put of if I was arguing that you should have violence inflicted upon you, have your liberties and freedoms revoked, your family taken away from you, you career prospects destroyed because you drive a car, which after all is much more of a societal problem than marijuana use will ever be?

 

[Praktik]

But yes, we can discuss whether or not legalizing cannabis might benefit everyone - if you agree not to fall back on "Well, I have the right to use it anyway" if it starts to seem like there actually are harmful effects.

This is not hand waving to win a fight on a message board.. This is asserting a fundamental right of cognitive liberty, which is actually irrelevant of harm levels. It is not a "fall back" position, after all - I assert my cognitive liberty to drink a coffee, smoke a joint - and even rail a line of coke if I'm in the mood. Maybe take a pill of ecstasy a few times a year too...

http://www.cognitiveliberty.org/mission.html

give these guys a read

 

[bit_pattern]

Oh, and if you want to talk about "societal damage" then why not have a look at the societal damage that the drug laws are wreaking in Mexico atm, when some estimates put the drug cartels profits from marijuana totalling something in the order of 70% of their income. If there were no laws against marijuana in America then there would be much, much less violence in Tijuana and Ciudad Juarez. So by supporting prohibition you are supporting the beheadings of Mexicans. Nice!

 

[bit_pattern]

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

 

[Halfcentaur]

It only falls to "I have the right to use it anyway" because you repeatedly site "it can possibly cause harm". It is shaky ground at best that MJ has been demonstrated to be addictive or cause withdrawals at all. You may have found some studies that back that up, but there are plenty that don't back it up. So it's not very honest for you to present the fact that it does in the language that you do, as if it's a known fact. The argument has mostly been about ending the prohibition so that the user no longer is required to deal with criminal elements at all, yet you still are citing the dangers of buying it and producing it in favor of your response. That's not getting the debate anywhere. If it were legal, than it would be absolutely no different than the current atmosphere today with "children and adults" being introduced to the world of inebriation. Again, this isn't a danger that suddenly is created if what is being argued here were to happen.
I have not seen you cite anything, even the dangers and issues I agree with you on, that would warrant the prohibition of today.

If you're not advocating for the same system we have today, what is it you propose should be done? Telling each other what we each think in the face of each others stance doesn't' seem to be getting anywhere. Am I wrong, or do you think what we have in place today is adequate or not in need of reform?

 

[Mirrorglass]

(My emphasis) 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

Who knows, maybe it would even help the economy (especially in California).

It will be interesting to see what happens there, although I can't say California's motivation for legalizing cannabis is particularly noble.

 

[Praktik]

It only falls to "I have the right to use it anyway" because you repeatedly site "it can possibly cause harm".

Let's separate these two because they're entirely different.

Health harm discussions should be focused on the science.

The right to one's own mind is a different issue entirely, and has no relation to the relative harm of the substance(s) we may be discussing.

And then beyond all of this, the legal status is kind of a separate issue as well - after all, health harm is not the reason pot is illegal and it is not the reason it is still illegal. Here we can discuss issues of sociological problems caused by prohibition or alleged to be prevented by prohibition.

But in my mind the first two issues are independent of its legal status, and only the last one regarding societal harm/benefit really relates.

 

[Mirrorglass]

Of course using these substances is a choice, but we're still threatened with having our lives and reputations destroyed because of what we feel is a baseless prohibition, a prohibition that you seem to be advocating.

While you may or may not agree with the severity of the current system and it's consequences, you are associated with a force that threatens those who represent "the other side of the argument" with personal ruination. I can see how this would cause a bit more biased of a response than the individuals in your examples.

If I am to be 'associated with a force that threatens you', then it also means all drug advocates are associated with all the problems caused by drugs - selling drugs to children, drug wars and such. I don't like those things, and if I'm to follow this reasoning, I have the right to be angry at you about them. Are you certain you wish to debate like that, or could we perhaps talk about this like adults?

 

[Praktik]

It will be interesting to see what happens there, although I can't say California's motivation for legalizing cannabis is particularly noble.

Interesting comment. So do you perceive nobility in those opposed to the voter proposition?

And on what basis do you castigate the motivation of those who support it?

 

[Halfcentaur]

If I am to be 'associated with a force that threatens you', then it also means all drug advocates are associated with all the problems caused by drugs - selling drugs to children, drug wars and such. I don't like those things, and if I'm to follow this reasoning, I have the right to be angry at you about them. Are you certain you wish to debate like that, or could we perhaps talk about this like adults?

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.

 

[bit_pattern]

^^ What he said

all the problems caused by drugs - selling drugs to children, drug wars and such. .

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.

or could we perhaps talk about this like adults?

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

 

[Praktik]

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.

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.

 

[Mirrorglass]

And who am I harming by smoking weed?

As noted in a post above, you are not only smoking weed, but also sustaining it's market, something I don't much appreciate.

Do you think that foods high in sugar and/or fat should be banned? How about having unprotected sex? How about contact sports?

I believe most contact sports have health benefits far superior to the risks. If there's a sport where you regularly get sent to the hospital, I would want to do a mental health assessment on people who practice it. And it's a very good idea to try to get people to eat better and use condoms, although obviously banning things isn't the only method to do that, despite you wanting to treat all situations as if they were perfectly analogous to drugs.

Anyway, we can go on like this forever, but the basic answer is always going to be the same; if it's truly poison, yes, it should not be available. If it's dangerous, it should not be encouraged, although it's not possible to stop people from doing all stupid things. I can't stop people from dueling, but I can take away their pistols. The logic for criminalizing drugs is the same.

Why? Who do you think owns your body? The state? And of course you have that pesky little fact to deal with that marijuana (and drugs in general) will probably not cause harm unless done to excess.

Clipping off parts of sentences and responding to the altered statements is bad form, and I'll have none of it.

I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that you would make us criminals simply for possessing a plant.

And you'd legalize selling of heroin near my children's preschool. Yet I take the time to find a nicer way to say "a disgustingly selfish opinion". If you would do the same with your points, this discussion would be far more pleasant.

 

[bit_pattern]

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.