New Study documents the brain damage caused by marijuana

[cosmicaug]

Here's my new PSA:
"This is your daughter."
"This is your daughter on heroin."
"No worries. It's legal and she won't go to jail."

I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not. If you are advocating a Portuguese style decriminalization framework, then you are advocating that "your daughter on heroin" will not go to jail in which case we are in more agreement than what our discussion would seem to indicate to a careless observer (though my views might be more extreme than that --actually, I'm not 100% sure as to what my view are beyond the fact that I know we need to decriminalize at the very minimum). However, I don't think anyone here is suggesting that your daughter doing heroin is a situation which warrants "no worries".

 

[cosmicaug]

In my country, if you sell a toy with lead-based paint on it, the public demands action. And someone wants me to allow cocaine and heroin in? No way. If we want to avoid collateral damage, then let's do that.

In my country, no one has gone to jail for making or selling cigarettes*, to my knowledge.




* Though I would guess some might have gone to jail for smuggling them (but that crime is one of tax avoidance, rather than of knowingly selling an intrinsically unsafe product).

 

[RandFan]

I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not. If you are advocating a Portuguese style decriminalization framework, then you are advocating that "your daughter on heroin" will not go to jail in which case we are in more agreement than what our discussion would seem to indicate to a careless observer (though my views might be more extreme than that --actually, I'm not 100% sure as to what my view are beyond the fact that I know we need to decriminalize at the very minimum). However, I don't think anyone here is suggesting that your daughter doing heroin is a situation which warrants "no worries".

Yes, let me be clear, as I've stated many times in previous threads that I support decriminalization but I've also stated that I'm for using the legal system to help addicts and regulate controlled substances. The focus needs to be on helping the addict though and not locking them up and throwing away the key.

If adopting the Portuguese model would lower dependance and reduce our prison population then I'm at a loss why we don't do that?

 

[marplots]

This is an argument for prayer. I say praying is not an appropriate approach to deal with this 1%. Someone else might call me a monster for not willing to spend the small effort which would be expended to pray for the recovery of drug addicts.

The difference is that, unlike drug criminalization regimes (ours in particular) which have a huge cost associated with them (and the money spent is the least of that cost, by far), prayer at least is neutral in its effects (other than a little wasted mental effort).

You are correct. I will abandon that argument, since I was unable to connect enforcement to lowered addiction rates anyhow. I was wrong.

 

[marplots]

I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not. If you are advocating a Portuguese style decriminalization framework, then you are advocating that "your daughter on heroin" will not go to jail in which case we are in more agreement than what our discussion would seem to indicate to a careless observer (though my views might be more extreme than that --actually, I'm not 100% sure as to what my view are beyond the fact that I know we need to decriminalize at the very minimum). However, I don't think anyone here is suggesting that your daughter doing heroin is a situation which warrants "no worries".

Yes, I was being a bit sarcastic to make the point. It's easy, even for me, to slip into a kind of all or nothing framework. It's disingenuous on my part, since I'm willing to accept a reduction in penalties for users.

 

[marplots]

In my country, no one has gone to jail for making or selling cigarettes*, to my knowledge.

This sounds like an argument for criminalizing cigarette manufacture and sales. I think you could make a case for it.

But to get at the deeper point, do you think the government should have a role in regulating harmful substances or should the public have free and easy access? (Or some middle ground?)

 

[marplots]

(snipped to get to the question)

If adopting the Portuguese model would lower dependance and reduce our prison population then I'm at a loss why we don't do that?

I know you didn't ask this of me, but I've been thinking about it.

I think the problem is in how addiction is traditionally viewed (by the lay public). It is framed as a character flaw and an indication of personal weakness. Money spent on helping addicts then falls under the same recipe as giving money to the poor, where poverty is sometimes seen as a lack of motivation to go out and get a job. This false characterization makes money spent on treatment wasted on people who don't deserve it -- they made their bed, let them lie in it. After all, they are only getting what they deserve, right? [I shouldn't have to say this, but please note: I do not agree with this viewpoint at all.]

If the professional addiction community can shift the public toward a disease model, where addiction is more akin to other mental disorders, we have a chance of getting funding for treatment. I don't hold out much hope in the near term. As long as it's seen as a freely chosen lifestyle, enforcement seems like a good way to make people choose differently. But it's not, at least for the individual addict.

The argument may work for the dealer/trafficker, but it doesn't work for users -- addicts are victims.

 

[elipse]

This sounds like an argument for criminalizing cigarette manufacture and sales. I think you could make a case for it.

But to get at the deeper point, do you think the government should have a role in regulating harmful substances or should the public have free and easy access? (Or some middle ground?)

The public should have free and easy access to these things*-- or, at least, as free and easy an access as to cigarettes or alcohol.

The government should regulate the hell out of whether these things end up in products without our knowledge (no lead paint in toys, no cocaine in coke) but if a citizen of legal age is on the lookout to buy some marijuana, ecstasy, lsd, etc, it should be as easy as buying cigarettes. The only things that should be considered are 1. does the citizen have the required amount of money and b. does the citizen have proof of age.

Now, with that should go very strict penalties about operating a motor vehicle while under the influence. It is about harm to others. (I also don't care if the government taxes these things heavily.)

It has nothing to do with harm to oneself. We all should have the freedom (potentially) harm ourselves by ingesting drugs, scarfing bacon cheeseburgers, sleeping with strangers whose sexual history we don't know, joining the army, wearing a wingsuit with no parachute, climbing mountains with no guide rope, or doing missionary work in Afghanistan. Or all of these things, if we wish, although I don't think we should be able to do numbers 4 and 7 concurrently.


I can go to the store and buy a rope, a straight razor, and sleeping pills at any time. I could commit suicide with any of them if I wanted to.

Should these things be controlled?

*I am willing to modify my position if it were shown that any particular drug makes people prone to the kinds of attacks on others that crazy oldschool drug propaganda films claim-- killing babies, for instance, but the harm to OTHER people is the key.

 

[marplots]

(snipped some)
I can go to the store and buy a rope, a straight razor, and sleeping pills at any time. I could commit suicide with any of them if I wanted to.

Should these things be controlled?

Maybe. As it stands now, razor blades and ropes are used with many purposes in mind. Drugs are closer to guns in the sense that they are single purpose -- if you are buying drugs, I can reasonably assume you intend to take them for recreational purposes. Just as when purchasing a gun, I can assume you wish to shoot something, although I cannot know if you want to shoot targets, your wife or yourself.

That aside, I do think the burden of proof should rest with the government. If they want to regulate sugar, for example, I'd like to see a strong case that there is a societal harm. This is somewhat different than the personal harm you mentioned, but not as concrete as the harm from drinking and driving.

Societal harm is a slippery issue. For example, we force children to go to school or may institute a draft. Both can be framed as a way to protect the interests of a larger society.

That, in itself, isn't a clear case for keeping drugs illegal. It would depend on the drug and what harm can be demonstrated.

I'll introduce another layer here though. Do you think addiction is a choice? In other words, if we don't have an element of free choice, what does that say about personal freedoms?

Suicide is an example of what I mean. If you would not prevent suicide, do you then have to agree that suicide which results from a treatable mental illness (such as depression) has the same character as suicide for euthanasia?

One of the hallmarks of the legalization argument seems to be the assumption of "a responsible adult making a free, informed choice." This may or may not be the case.

 

[elipse]

Maybe. As it stands now, razor blades and ropes are used with many purposes in mind. Drugs are closer to guns in the sense that they are single purpose -- if you are buying drugs, I can reasonably assume you intend to take them for recreational purposes. Just as when purchasing a gun, I can assume you wish to shoot something, although I cannot know if you want to shoot targets, your wife or yourself.

That aside, I do think the burden of proof should rest with the government. If they want to regulate sugar, for example, I'd like to see a strong case that there is a societal harm. This is somewhat different than the personal harm you mentioned, but not as concrete as the harm from drinking and driving.

Societal harm is a slippery issue. For example, we force children to go to school or may institute a draft. Both can be framed as a way to protect the interests of a larger society.

That, in itself, isn't a clear case for keeping drugs illegal. It would depend on the drug and what harm can be demonstrated.

I'll introduce another layer here though. Do you think addiction is a choice? In other words, if we don't have an element of free choice, what does that say about personal freedoms?

Suicide is an example of what I mean. If you would not prevent suicide, do you then have to agree that suicide which results from a treatable mental illness (such as depression) has the same character as suicide for euthanasia?

One of the hallmarks of the legalization argument seems to be the assumption of "a responsible adult making a free, informed choice." This may or may not be the case.

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh I had this long reply and it got eaten. I'll try again tomorrow.

short answer: attempting to prevent is not the same thing as making illegal.

 

[tsig]

How can we be sure the money spent is exactly the reason the drug addiction rate stayed relatively the same?

We have to spend more and more to remain in the same place.

 

[marplots]

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh I had this long reply and it got eaten. I'll try again tomorrow.

short answer: attempting to prevent is not the same thing as making illegal.

No worries, your short answer is pretty pithy as it stands.

 

[mgidm86]

If adopting the Portuguese model would lower dependance and reduce our prison population then I'm at a loss why we don't do that?

I know you didn't ask this of me, but I've been thinking about it.

I think the problem is in how addiction is traditionally viewed (by the lay public). It is framed as a character flaw and an indication of personal weakness. Money spent on helping addicts then falls under the same recipe as giving money to the poor, where poverty is sometimes seen as a lack of motivation to go out and get a job. This false characterization makes money spent on treatment wasted on people who don't deserve it -- they made their bed, let them lie in it. After all, they are only getting what they deserve, right? [I shouldn't have to say this, but please note: I do not agree with this viewpoint at all.]

If the professional addiction community can shift the public toward a disease model, where addiction is more akin to other mental disorders, we have a chance of getting funding for treatment. I don't hold out much hope in the near term. As long as it's seen as a freely chosen lifestyle, enforcement seems like a good way to make people choose differently. But it's not, at least for the individual addict.

The argument may work for the dealer/trafficker, but it doesn't work for users -- addicts are victims.

I think the answer is a bit simpler - there is too much money and bureaucracy involved in this "war" to just pull the plug on it. Too many people getting paychecks, too many people are lining their pockets. Entire agencies were created just to fight drugs. How often does our government close one of its "agencies"? The war on drugs makes money for, and gives power to too many people for it to be as simple as just "ending it".

I think the war on drugs is asinine, but I'm afraid it will be difficult to stop.

Which brings me back to marijuana. I read an article recently about how some hippies in Mendocino county are upset because all the big cannabis growers are taking over their business. They are upset because they cultivated marijuana for decades and were able to make a living at it. But now that it's "legal", these smaller growers are being pushed aside by bigger growers. Boohoo!

In other words, these illegal growers were better off when pot was illegal. Now that the price of pot has gone way down they can't make a living anymore. Drug dealers want drugs to remain illegal.

 

[asydhouse]

Good enough.
Any "good" is the same as locking up people for any crime at all.

You lock up poets and artists for using psychoactive drugs, and then you self-righteously proclaim they are akin to murderers and rapists. You are just sick.

 

[asydhouse]

In other words, these illegal growers were better off when pot was illegal. Now that the price of pot has gone way down they can't make a living anymore. Drug dealers want drugs to remain illegal.

If it was truly legal, you could buy from your local farmer in the friendly market, same as other local produce... or don't you have that kind of market in the States? Or grow it yourself... I would be dubious of the quality from large businesses taking over.... dumb bland anyone?

 

[marplots]

You lock up poets and artists for using psychoactive drugs, and then you self-righteously proclaim they are akin to murderers and rapists. You are just sick.

Yes, poets and artists are the same as serial killers. Seriously? You got that from this?

Marplots: Good enough.
Any "good" is the same as locking up people for any crime at all.

Once upon a time a scientist was observing a strange ritual. The village elders were throwing a pig and a boulder off a cliff. They would then send others down to gather the dead pig and the broken boulder.

The scientist remarked, "Did you know that the pig and boulder fall at exactly the same rate?"

The elders found this amazing and told the story for many years afterward.
"There was this crazy fellow who didn't know the difference between a pig and a boulder!"

 

[RandFan]

Once upon a time a scientist was observing a strange ritual. The village elders were throwing a pig and a boulder off a cliff. They would then send others down to gather the dead pig and the broken boulder.

The scientist remarked, "Did you know that the pig and boulder fall at exactly the same rate?"

The elders found this amazing and told the story for many years afterward.
"There was this crazy fellow who didn't know the difference between a pig and a boulder!"

I don't know why but I've read through this now a half dozen times and all I can come up with is this, "If it weren't for my horse, I wouldn't have spent that year in college." But I'm sure Lewis Black gets it.

 

[marplots]

I don't know why but I've read through this now a half dozen times and all I can come up with is this, "If it weren't for my horse, I wouldn't have spent that year in college." But I'm sure Lewis Black gets it.

I hope he would, I like his humor.

To kill the fun and make it pedantic:
An analogy is only meant to highlight certain aspects of things being compared. No analogy can fit perfectly -- if it could, it wouldn't be an analogy, but the thing under discussion itself.

The common mistake, and the one I suppose I am guilty of, is not making clear just what aspect you have in mind when you make a comparison. So, comparing pigs to boulders works if the property you have in mind is acceleration under gravity -- not so much for other things.

My comment about jailing people doing any "good" had to do with the pragmatic part -- you are removing people from the larger society by force because we've determined we don't want them in the mix. That's all. Is that a "good?" Same reasoning for a murderer as a serial litterer, and no moral dimension involved.

I may not agree that locking someone up for a drug crime is justified, but until I get enough votes on my side to change the law, I'm stuck with it. To say I have the moral high ground and those that made the law are less moral harkens back to how a theocracy, not a democracy works.

 

[RandFan]

I hope he would, I like his humor.

To kill the fun and make it pedantic:
An analogy is only meant to highlight certain aspects of things being compared. No analogy can fit perfectly -- if it could, it wouldn't be an analogy, but the thing under discussion itself.

The common mistake, and the one I suppose I am guilty of, is not making clear just what aspect you have in mind when you make a comparison. So, comparing pigs to boulders works if the property you have in mind is acceleration under gravity -- not so much for other things.

My comment about jailing people doing any "good" had to do with the pragmatic part -- you are removing people from the larger society by force because we've determined we don't want them in the mix. That's all. Is that a "good?" Same reasoning for a murderer as a serial litterer, and no moral dimension involved.

I may not agree that locking someone up for a drug crime is justified, but until I get enough votes on my side to change the law, I'm stuck with it. To say I have the moral high ground and those that made the law are less moral harkens back to how a theocracy, not a democracy works.

Thanks. Not sure what all of that has to do with pigs and boulders but I can understand it and for that I thank you.

 

[cosmicaug]

My comment about jailing people doing any "good" had to do with the pragmatic part -- you are removing people from the larger society by force because we've determined we don't want them in the mix. That's all. Is that a "good?" Same reasoning for a murderer as a serial litterer, and no moral dimension involved.

Aren't you kind using a circular argument here? A big part of the drug war as implemented in the US is to declare it a good thing for these people to be incarcerated. To say that the drug war is good because it accomplishes this is assuming your conclusion unless you can justify these people being in jail as a desirable outcome through some other means.

If we had a "war on killing" I'm pretty sure that we could come with some pretty decent arguments regarding why we might want murderers removed from the mix which would not rely on the jailing of murderers being defined as part of the "war on killing". Can we do the same thing for the "war on drugs"?