New Study documents the brain damage caused by marijuana

[Skeptic Ginger]

When my sister-in-law was a nurse (before she died -- she would still be one today) she noticed that immediately after known pot heads died in the hospital their brains smelled almost like poo in an autopsy.

In the military, my peers who confessed to having smoked a lot in high school were slower and more accident prone and seemed to do things without thinking.

But, you know, it is all worth it cause it makes you so cool. And don't believe me because I have some sort of agenda. Whatever, cuz.

You have no evidence of these claims.

The autopsy claim especially lacks credibility. Why would your sister-in-law even be in on an autopsy? It's not a nursing function. And for her to collect reliable evidence?

Your "accident prone" peers is the worst of false conclusions from sloppy anecdotal observations. Have you learned nothing from being in this forum?

Then there is the supposed motive of smoking for peer pressure. Do you really think no one enjoys pot, they are just doing it because others do?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

My best friends father-in-law has an uncle whose mother is a brain surgeon and she says this isn't true. We all know the power of anecdotal hearsay evidence in a skeptics forum. It's the best kind and since my source outranks yours, checkmate.

More anecdotal evidence. I'm curious how you controlled for bias?

My problem isn't with your agenda but the low quality of your evidence and your willingness to trot it out in a skeptics forum and think it would convince anyone of anything.

Waaay better answer than mine.

 

[Halfcentaur]

So the person who smoked every day for a couple decades then quits because they were pregnant and merely suffered a bit of appetite suppression was never addicted all along? The person in question has not smoked since and the child is now grown.

Er, ah, I'm asking about a friend.

That makes more sense to me then, trying to put this in perspective. Using every day is not necessarily a sign of true addiction.

No more than feeling the urge to watch TV every day or post on a forum. We often develop habits which are intimately associated with memory and mood, and we tend to repeat actions which we connect with sensations of calm, pleasure, interest, leisure, relaxation, entertainment, etc.

 

[Halfcentaur]

Why is the legality in Mexico relevant?

Racism and fear of counterculture types like jazz musicians is why it was made illegal.


And? It will be voters who eventually make it legal.

Racism and xenophobia were but tools. As I understand it, it was Henry Anslinger's personal desire to keep his department employed after the end of prohibition which led to him developing a propaganda machine which made use of these tools that really seems to be the stone that caused the waves and ripples we know as the war on drugs.

It seems pretty straight forward when reading about the trials he instigated.

 

[Dancing David]

I've seen many people suffering from severe COPD and emphysema who continued to smoke. It's not just cancer.

That would seem to be dependence.

Earlier in the thread there was a lot of painting of daily pot smokers as meeting the definition of addicted. I said they weren't addicted but rather only habituated. The way you are defining addiction is closer to the way I define it. And I have no argument that there are a small number of people with significantly destructive pot addictions.

Habituation is certainly not addiction, just continued significant life dysfunction from continued use.

 

[Mycroft]

On federal minimum sentencing, we are moving from the user's perspective to the dealers perspective. Again, I wouldn't claim that dealers are addicted to marijuana, but in it primarily for the money. This moves an offense from one of possession for personal use into another territory, doesn't it? One where the product isn't as important as the willingness to sell something illegal for profit.

The "dealers" that I know are simply people who enjoy marijuana, and are willing to sell part of their supply to friends who also enjoy marijuana. You can make a profit doing it, but it's supplementary income at best, and it goes back and forth as the guy who is "dealing" today may well be buying tomorrow.

If someone sets out to move a pound or two of weed for profit, how is that different than doing it with any other illegal product? It could be elephant ivory for all I care -- they went in with eyes open and evil intent. Or do they have a justification I am overlooking?

Trade in elephant ivory leads towards the extinction of elephants, and that's why it's bad. Trade in marijuana, unless you're dealing with Mexican drug lords, has no such negative consequences.

 

[Mycroft]

Court order, family pressures, pressures from society and drug testing for employment -- no doubt all figure into the mix. What's interesting though, is that none of these seem like a strong enough motivation to give up weed in many cases. That's the part that I find hard to explain when marijuana is touted as non-addictive. What am I willing to give up to continue using it?

It's kinda like masturbation. Many people are taught that it's wrong and they shouldn't do it, but it's done in secret anyway.

 

[asydhouse]

It's kinda like masturbation. Many people are taught that it's wrong and they shouldn't do it, but it's done in secret anyway.

A lot of great music has been made/written while people were high on cannabis, and most of it's been shared and all of it's made the world a better place.

Wanking's great for several reasons, but using cannabis is way more socially beneficial and it's culturally enriching.

 

[cosmicaug]

 

[RandFan]

http://cdn.theatlanticwire.com/img/upload/2012/10/12/drug-spending-v-addiction.gif

If it looks like America is acting stupid in its war on drugs it's because it is.

Give people information and let them decide.

 

[marplots]

That's a cute graph.
Anyone else want to explain how it's been manipulated?

I'll start:
Why are we comparing a rate (%) to a raw number ($ spent)?
Aren't those things affected differently by population changes (among other things)?

These are rhetorical questions -- I've had occasion to produce dramatic graphs myself to support a point.

 

[RandFan]

Why are we comparing a rate (%) to a raw number ($ spent)?

Let me ask a few questions, assuming the graph is correct, does it look like all of that money spent has done anything? Has it reduced the rate of drug dependency? I'm not sure how you can claim it's manipulated if the money was spent and did not reduce the rate of drug use.

I think a better attack would have been on the source. I note it's not provided and that always causes me some concern.

 

[marplots]

Let me ask a few questions, assuming the graph is correct, does it look like all of that money spent has done anything? Has it reduced the rate of drug dependency? I'm not sure how you can claim it's manipulated if the money was spent and did not reduce the rate of drug use.

I think a better attack would have been on the source. I note it's not provided and that always causes me some concern.

I'll assume you really want to know how the trick works.

If we compare raw numbers ($$ spent) to raw numbers ( # of people addicted) instead of addiction rate (a percentage), the the lower line trends upward as population increases.

For example, a 1% addiction rate in 1980 (pop 226M) gets you about 2 million addicts. In 2010 (pop 309M) it gets you about 3 million (an increase of 50%). Yet magically, the rate remains about the same.

More importantly, in what sense is the spending on drug enforcement related to addiction rates? Surely the graph implies there is some reason to compare the two figures? What's the reason?

What would a graph that compared addiction rates to amounts spent on treatment programs show? Well, we know addiction rates remain stable. My guess is that treatment spending has also ballooned, although I don't have a figure to toss out.

Your instinct to ask about a source or underlying data is spot on. How is money labeled as "for drug enforcement"? What constitutes addiction?

 

[RandFan]

I'll assume you really want to know how the trick works.

Dude, as a programmer I've written statistical analysis software. You are wasting your time on that. Just answer the questions... You know what, just answer this one, ignore the graph as it relates to the money spent, assume that the money spent remains static relative to population, what did we get for our money?

 

[RandFan]

Hell, I'll go you one better...

Dude, as a programmer I've written statistical analysis software. You are wasting your time on that. Just answer the questions... You know what, just answer this one, ignore the graph as it relates to the money spent, assume that the money spent remains static relative to population, what did we get for our money?

Assume that per capita spending on drug control decreased relative to population growth, what did we get for our money?

 

[marplots]

Assume that per capita spending on drug control decreased relative to population growth, what did we get for our money?

I don't know. The graph doesn't tell me.

I might as well graph the amount spent on paved roads verses the amount of drug smuggling that takes advantage of roads.

Whenever you compare historical one-offs, you are left asking an unanswerable question: "How would things have been different if things had been different?"

In effect, you want to compare what happened (whatever the "right" statistics are) with what might have happened with different choices. The first is an observable fact, the second is a guess.

Getting back to your question, "What did we get for our money?" here are a few things we got:
More people in prison.
Less drugs available to users.
Higher employment in the criminal justice/prison industry.
A pile of forfeited assets.

What we did not get was an elimination of addiction. What we did not get was anything close to perfect justice.

Is 20 billion a year worth keeping the fight going? Should we spend more? Should more money be spent on curing/treating addiction? Should we look closer at harm reduction as a result of inappropriate enforcement? I'd say all of these were worth looking into.

Here's something to put the numbers on a different scale (assuming the numbers in the chart are meaningful). We spend about 25% more a year on drug control than we spend on NASA.

 

[cosmicaug]

Let me ask a few questions, assuming the graph is correct, does it look like all of that money spent has done anything? Has it reduced the rate of drug dependency? I'm not sure how you can claim it's manipulated if the money was spent and did not reduce the rate of drug use.

I think a better attack would have been on the source. I note it's not provided and that always causes me some concern.

I linked that to an Atlantic article. I made no comments about the source of the figures because the sources for the data are mentioned in the article.


P.S. I should have noted that the graphic is hyperlinked.

 

[cosmicaug]

For example, a 1% addiction rate in 1980 (pop 226M) gets you about 2 million addicts. In 2010 (pop 309M) it gets you about 3 million (an increase of 50%). Yet magically, the rate remains about the same.

Big deal! Jeez, can you not do math? So the spending at 2010 is for a million more addicts than for 1980. That still means that to keep everything proportional you'd be spending 3 billion dollars in 2010 rather than 2 in 1980. That still leaves you a surplus of 17 billion dollars so on a per capita basis we are still spending almost 7 times more in 2010.

What are we getting for our money?

 

[cosmicaug]

Getting back to your question, "What did we get for our money?" here are a few things we got:
More people in prison.

Not very desirable, in and of itself.

Less drugs available to users.

Very questionable. I ask for some references on that one. Plus I would not mind knowing how availability is defined. If availability has to do with what reaches the market and therefore what is getting consumed, your references ought to show a drop in consumption. This might not be easy to show (does a drop of consumption in quaaludes count if it is accompanied by a concurrent rise in prescription opiate abuse and a rise in methamphetamine abuse?) but there must be data on the subject somewhere. Alternatively, just showing a drop in addicted people would work (oh wait, that's what the chart is about --never mind!) or lower numbers of users for various substances (and if my memory of the sort of data on this that is out there is correct --and it might not be-- you are going to have a very hard time showing significant drops).

Higher employment in the criminal justice/prison industry.

That's something, I guess.

A pile of forfeited assets.

Which results in better funding of law enforcement the funding of which needs to be greater in part because of the "drug war". And so the snake bites its own tail. Actually, what I really think about this is that the lure of seized assets which the "drug war" provides is both a corrupting influence to law enforcement and a great detriment to civil rights.

What we did not get was an elimination of addiction. What we did not get was anything close to perfect justice.

Agreed.

 

[RandFan]

Assume that per capita spending on drug control decreased relative to population growth, what did we get for our money?

I don't know. The graph doesn't tell me.

That's disingenuous. You claim the graph is manipulated. I took that manipulation away. And? Since you are now about to move the goal posts, let me answer the question, if we spend money to reduce drug use and nothing changes then IT DOESN'T WORK.

I might as well graph the amount spent on paved roads verses the amount of drug smuggling that takes advantage of roads.

Again, disingenuous as we don't spend money on paved roads to reduce or increase drug smuggling.

More people in prison.

Netherlands to close prisons for lack of criminals. In America we spend $30,000 per inmate. That money could be spent for other things as Eisenhower notes. Warehousing humans is a really, really stupid jobs program.

Less drugs available to users.

Evidence please?

Higher employment in the criminal justice/prison industry.

Higher crime. More incarcerated citizens. Higher drug use.

What we did not get was an elimination of addiction. What we did not get was anything close to perfect justice.

A.) I'm not asking for elimination of addictions. B.) I'm not asking for a perfect justice system. Those are straw men. I'm asking for us to stop doing idiotic things. Nations that focus on treatment have lower drug use, less violent crime from drug use and fewer wasted resources on warehousing humans. We are stuck on stupid.

So, the chart stands as a startling indictment against the war on drugs.