New Study documents the brain damage caused by marijuana

[marplots]

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"?

I don't think good or bad comes into it, at least not on some "higher morality" plane. All I was getting at was that incarceration, for whatever reason, does what it's supposed to do -- remove people from society. Those that want to link the War on Drugs to a higher incarceration rate are left having to either claim that imprisoning anyone at all is not a good idea or separating out drugs as a category that doesn't deserve prison time.

I wasn't trying to say anything about the drugs in particular, or even about morality -- just that incarceration is a consequence in a society governed by laws, a consequence that may or may not follow some activity. To say incarceration itself is some kind of evil is fine, but it doesn't make sense to OK it for one crime and not another on that basis alone.

To my ear, the argument had drifted into something like, "the war on drugs is bad because it leads to the imprisonment of more people and prison is a bad thing." That's a different argument than simply saying, "drug use shouldn't be an offense that puts people in prison (or even an offense at all)."

The question shouldn't be whether prison is bad, but whether drug crimes deserve a prison sentence. That's all I was getting at -- two separate questions, one about prison reform and another about drugs.

On a side note, the experiment I had in mind for marijuana looks like it will happen. Washington and Colorado have voted to make it legal at the state level (while Oregon's measure didn't pass). We should look and see what the consequences are. Nothing like an experiment to figure out which side of the argument is better.

 

[RandFan]

To my ear, the argument had drifted into something like, "the war on drugs is bad because it leads to the imprisonment of more people and prison is a bad thing."

Your ear is wrong. There is no demonstrative upside to imprisoning people for what is otherwise a victimless crime. I would reserve incarceration for only the most serious of drug offenses. If incarceration for drug offenses cannot be shown to affect change and it can be shown to cost huge amounts of money and have other negative results then it's stupid to perpetuate it.

In short, you are framing the argument in a vacuum.

 

[marplots]

Your ear is wrong. There is no demonstrative upside to imprisoning people for what is otherwise a victimless crime. I would reserve incarceration for only the most serious of drug offenses. If incarceration for drug offenses cannot be shown to affect change and it can be shown to cost huge amounts of money and have other negative results then it's stupid to perpetuate it.

In short, you are framing the argument in a vacuum.

I agree. But your position doesn't depend on prison being universally bad, just inappropriate for "victimless" crimes. (I put that in quotes because that's the main debate in this thread.)

To make the point, I'll mention forfeiture, a penalty we sometimes use for arguably victimless crimes. For example, if I make whiskey for my own consumption and get caught, the government can take my whiskey away. If I've been selling it, they may take away other property under the forfeiture laws. Similar penalties exist for marijuana. In fact, the government doesn't have to demonstrate an actual sale -- trafficking is assumed if I have more than some set quantity in my possession.

Now, I might argue that taking my property away under the assumption that I made money selling whiskey or dope (and the burden is on me to prove I didn't) is an unjust application of forfeiture laws and still retain the idea that forfeiture is a useful tool for enforcement.

Criticizing a tool and how the tool is used are two different things. I suspect we aren't really disagreeing here, just talking past one another.

 

[RandFan]

I agree. But your position doesn't depend on prison being universally bad, just inappropriate for "victimless" crimes. (I put that in quotes because that's the main debate in this thread.)

To make the point, I'll mention forfeiture, a penalty we sometimes use for arguably victimless crimes. For example, if I make whiskey for my own consumption and get caught, the government can take my whiskey away. If I've been selling it, they may take away other property under the forfeiture laws. Similar penalties exist for marijuana. In fact, the government doesn't have to demonstrate an actual sale -- trafficking is assumed if I have more than some set quantity in my possession.

Now, I might argue that taking my property away under the assumption that I made money selling whiskey or dope (and the burden is on me to prove I didn't) is an unjust application of forfeiture laws and still retain the idea that forfeiture is a useful tool for enforcement.

Criticizing a tool and how the tool is used are two different things. I suspect we aren't really disagreeing here, just talking past one another.

That's cool. I just think there is little purpose to this tool as it relates to drug enforcement.

 

[NateHevens]

I know this is an old post and thread, and Lowpro probably isn't even reading this thread anymore (for all I know), but I absolutely have to respond to this:

The highlighted part is exactly the problem. That reasoning is so goddamned divorced of compassion and consideration for everything from the spectrum of your family, your neighbor, your lifetime partner, or a guy you've just met but never knew beforehand. What you've just said is so wrong and so vile and yet you're so goddamned quick to say "throw em' in prison!" that it's just....DAMN dude! really?!?!? That's so sick that you should be ashamed. I mean let me put on my big boy ignorant Texan voice and maybe you'll understand the satire: "Hey who gives a !@#( if it hurts him as long as it dun't hurt anyone else then by all means let him totally get right tight with whatever he wants, after all @#(! em' right?!"

Being an agnostic atheist and antitheist, I don't pray. But if I did, I would spend the rest of my life begging whatever god(dess) I pray to to make sure you never get into power.

Seriously.

I am one of the most left-wing people you will ever meet. Economically, I'm what US-Americans would mis-classify as a socialist (single-payer health care [or at least a public option], major regulations of the market, not "buyer beware" but "seller beware", environmental regulations, invest in green energy... all of it).

But when it comes to personal morals, I take a more libertarian view: you have the right to do whatever you want, as long as you do not violate another person's right to do whatever they want (exceptions include consent [which isn't really an exception at all, since there is no violation in this case] and self defense/defense of loved ones, [except from themselves]).

In other words, if someone is intent on killing themselves, and it does not involve killing anybody else but them, then, I'm sorry, but you very simply don't have the right to stop them. You can cry, complain, beg, scream, shout, throw a tantrum, inform everyone else... you can do anything you want, as long as you do not violate their right to do whatever they want, even if it means they kill themselves.

Sorry, but that's simply the way it is.

If I want to smoke pot (actually, I much prefer vaping... smoother and gentler, IMO... short of that, I'll use a bong, with lots of ice), snort heroin, drop acid or shrooms, smoke or inject coke, take ecstasy, take meth, or enjoy any other means of getting inebriated, you do NOT have the right to stop me.

You may:
-Suggest I not do it
-Beg me to stop
-Educate me (with my consent) on the dangers (though I'm already fully aware of the dangers of many, if not most, drugs)

You may NOT:
-Hide my stash
-Force me to stop
-Force me into a rehabilitation program/treatment facility
-Call the cops on me and/or otherwise get me arrested

On the other hand, if I present a physical and immediate danger to other people, perhaps including yourself (such as driving while inebriated, playing with weapons, getting handsy with people who may not be comfortable with it, violating boundaries, getting extremely violent, etc), then you may step in, in the name of self defense/defense of loved ones, to stop me from being a danger. You still can't stop me using, because that is my choice, and as long as I'm not hurting anyone else physically, then there is no victim (you cannot victimize yourself). But when my actions have the potential of harming others, then you may stop me, because my actions have the potential of violating another person's right to do whatever they want.

It's. That. Simple.

I am one of those people who thinks all drugs should be decriminalized. The money we'd save should be diverted to treatment programs for addicts who want to be treated.

Then different drugs can be treated differently.

Two examples:

1. LSD should be returned to psychiatrists in order to be used for it's original, intended use (which, if you didn't know, was as a therapeutic in psychiatry, and also has other potential uses in the field, including fighting alcoholism).

2. Marijuana should be legalized and taxed like alcohol and tobacco, since it is safer than both, at least as far as we know. Basically, what just happened in Colorado and Washington state should happen for the whole US. (BTW... watch their economies closely over the next 5 to 10 years... I predict, barring federal involvement, that these two states are not only going to be the first to jettison out of this recession, but their employment rates will skyrocket.)

Of course, each drug should be evaluated on its own merits. Obviously dangerous drugs, such as meth and heroin, should never go beyond basic decriminalization. However, users should be offered treatment; they should neither be arrested nor thrown in jail/fined. Also, the decision to go to treatment should ultimately rest with them. I'm not in favor of forcing treatment on people who are only a danger to themselves because I think we underestimate how much people know about the dangers of drugs...

I'd argue that most abusers of drugs are fully and completely aware of the dangers in abusing whatever it is they are abusing. Some want to stop but can't; thus, it is their decision to seek help, and it should be there, fully funded, for their use.

Others, however, just don't care. I actually know people like this. They are fully aware of what they are doing to themselves and not only don't care, but have no intentions of stopping. As an example, a long while back on this forum on another thread, I posted an anecdote about a friend, a cynic, who quite literally thinks the lung cancer from smoking cigarettes is "better than this ****" (by which he means the state of society). And yes, he still thinks like this today, although he switched to e-cigs a few months ago because he likes the taste better and they actually save him money...

The point of this rambling tl;dr is that you have to respect people's autonomy. If they don't want help, you do not have the right to help them against their own wishes.

Period.

We do not have the right to force people into treatment. If they don't want it, we have to respect that.

And BTW, Lowpro... my position is compassionate, because my position respects every human being as an independent, autonomous person capable of making his/her own decisions.

Another point to consider is that legal prohibition does not work. If you really want prohibition, then your best bet is cultural/learned prohibition. Sure, it's not something that works in the short-term, but in the long-term it's cheaper and safer. You don't enact prohibition by law; you educate the younger generations and get them to consciously decide to make it a taboo. Then, you don't need the law. You just convince kids that doing drugs isn't "cool" by educating them properly (aka: don't lie to them), and I guarantee you that not only will they carry that view into adulthood, but they'll teach it to their kids, and we'll eventually have a generation of people who think doing drugs is stupid, and they pass that on, and you no longer need the law to enforce it, because the society itself will enforce it.

Yes, it means incidence amongst current generations will spike, because education takes time. But, as they say, "the night is darkest just before the dawn". Everything always gets worse before it gets better. So yeah... in the short term, decriminalizing drugs and relying on education will look like a failure. But in the long term, you will end up with generations of people who just don't like it, and it will go away on its own, naturally. And it doesn't involve a waste of money and millions of needless deaths.

And yes, we do it now, but there's a fatal flaw in the system: illegality. This creates what's known as the "forbidden fruit", and people will do it to buck the system. But if you remove that element, eventually there'll be no "bucking the system", and it will become boring. It isn't boring now; it's thrilling ("WOOH! LOOK AT ME! I'M BREAKING THE LAW!!!!!"... and an addiction is born). And that's the problem. (And yes, I use this argument when debating age limits, as well, but that's a different discussion not for this thread.)

As to the discussion about taxing... it would be hard to tax if the government allowed people to grow their own. One would only have to purchase one pack of seeds (or even just one seed) to cultivate a small garden for years on end.

I think maybe one possible way to circumvent that would a grower's ID. The ID itself is free. What you pay for on a subscription basis (yearly, quarterly, or monthly) is the amount of plants you grow. I wouldn't know what to charge for each separate plant. I would personally say $0.50 (so $5 for ten plants, $10 for twenty, and so on), but I don't know enough about economics and costs like this to make that estimation. I'd have to leave it to people more knowledgeable than I.

Of course, enforcing the ID is something I would not know how to implement, either. I'm not sure how I feel about cops randomly knocking on people's doors to ensure that they're following the terms of the ID, so this idea could ultimately be a failure on that end. It is one possible suggestion, though, and I'd be up for any suggestion that would allow private citizens to grow their own because I would prefer it if the tobacco industry kept their grubby, crap-adding hands off of my weed. I just know they would dilute the THC and add all these other additives and crap to it. Why? Because they do something similar to tobacco already.

 

[marplots]

NateHevens,

I didn't want to quote your whole post, although I did read it. I'm interested in how you would respond to this objection?

What are we to do when the activity itself harms someone's ability to make decisions? The addiction model includes the idea that some substances self-reinforce, so that choice leaves the building at some point. If the substance itself is driving the outcome and a free choice is no longer available, does society have a duty to step in?

 

[Roger Ramjets]

actually, I much prefer vaping... smoother and gentler, IMO... short of that, I'll use a bong, with lots of ice

Pot damages the brain. More and more studies are coming out showing this to be true. At what point will you admit that it's harmful, and that you shouldn't be advocating it?

you have the right to do whatever you want, as long as you do not violate another person's right to do whatever they want

That's fine so long as your drug-taking really isn't affecting anybody else. If you live on a deserted island and nobody knows what you are up to then I say go for it - it's your life! But the mere fact that you think anybody should be allowed to toke up if they feel like it is encouraging others to follow your example. What will you say to someone who does, when they find out what it's doing to their brain?

And yes, we do it now, but there's a fatal flaw in the system: illegality. This creates what's known as the "forbidden fruit", and people will do it to buck the system. But if you remove that element, eventually there'll be no "bucking the system", and it will become boring. It isn't boring now; it's thrilling ("WOOH! LOOK AT ME! I'M BREAKING THE LAW!!!!!"... and an addiction is born).

There is fatal flaw in your argument. Mind-altering drugs aren't just addictive because they are 'forbidden'. They really do alter the mind in ways which interfere with the body's regulatory systems, and short-circuit the reward system which the brain uses to reinforce positive behavior.

If Pot is decriminalized than maybe a few people won't try it because it's 'boring', but I bet a lot more will try it because it's less taboo and easier to obtain (just like tobacco and alcohol are now). And once they do try it, boom! - they discover how to get the reward without doing any work, and another addict is born.

Pot smokers don't just get the munchies and lack motivation because they are doing something 'forbidden', it's the drug screwing up their brain. And once your brain is screwed up, you aren't in a fit state to decide whether you should be partaking or not.

To be blunt, your opinion doesn't count because you are a user. Of course you advocate 'freedom' and 'personal responsibility' and 'legalize all drugs', but that's only because you need an excuse to justify your addiction. It's the drug talking...

 

[NateHevens]

NateHevens,

I didn't want to quote your whole post, although I did read it. I'm interested in how you would respond to this objection?

What are we to do when the activity itself harms someone's ability to make decisions? The addiction model includes the idea that some substances self-reinforce, so that choice leaves the building at some point. If the substance itself is driving the outcome and a free choice is no longer available, does society have a duty to step in?

Before I answer this, I want to go ahead and anticipate the most obvious objection to my answer: my experience is based solely on my own anecdotal experience. I am fully and completely aware of the statistical insignificance and scientific unimportance of such types of "evidence".

However, as a human being shaped by my experiences, I have to rely on them. What I have seen is that even people who are highly addicted to one or more substances can admit to wanting help. They may not consciously seek it, but when pressed, they will agree that they need help. At that point, you are free to get them help.

They can also deny that they need help, or admit that they have a problem but suggest that they have no interest in fixing it. In which case I would argue that the right thing to do would be to leave them alone until they either eventually admit that they do need help, or become a danger to you and/or others.

I would argue that the ability to realize you need help is not eradicated completely by severe addiction. Most addicts, IMO, are aware that they are addicts, and can ultimately admit to wanting (or not wanting) help.

Pot damages the brain. More and more studies are coming out showing this to be true. At what point will you admit that it's harmful, and that you shouldn't be advocating it?

Care to show where I advocated it? Care to show where I said "hey! you! You should smoke marijuana!"

I didn't say that, did I?

I said that I am a user. I did not discuss how often I use. If you must know, my last session will be exactly 8 months ago in 4 days.

There are lots of things I encourage/advocate... drugs is not one of them.

Also, I see one study, linked to in the OP of this thread.

Did you know that caffeine can kill you?

So can antihistamine.

So can peanuts.

Why aren't these things illegal?

That's fine so long as your drug-taking really isn't affecting anybody else. If you live on a deserted island and nobody knows what you are up to then I say go for it - it's your life! But the mere fact that you think anybody should be allowed to toke up if they feel like it is encouraging others to follow your example. What will you say to someone who does, when they find out what it's doing to their brain?

What a load of crap. The only people I enjoy it with started long before I did. I've never gotten someone else to do drugs and I would never would, as I don't believe in proselytizing.

Hell... I still feel bad about shattering someone's faith (she was a Christian) at my college a few weeks ago, and I hate religion and find faith confusing and strange! (She thanked me, BTW... I still feel bad about it.)

My decision to occasionally vape very simply does not effect anybody else.

Period.

You have the ability to say no. It's a very simple thing. And I don't engage in peer pressure, because I hate it. I respect people when they say "no" to me. I applaud them for it.

There is fatal flaw in your argument. Mind-altering drugs aren't just addictive because they are 'forbidden'. They really do alter the mind in ways which interfere with the body's regulatory systems, and short-circuit the reward system which the brain uses to reinforce positive behavior.

Then you misread my argument. The fact that it's a "forbidden fruit" is one of the major reasons people try it in the first place. The addiction is born from there, in some people, if they continue to use it after the initial thrill of first-time use.

Remove that, and you remove one of the main attractions to it.

If Pot is decriminalized than maybe a few people won't try it because it's 'boring', but I bet a lot more will try it because it's less taboo and easier to obtain (just like tobacco and alcohol are now). And once they do try it, boom! - they discover how to get the reward without doing any work, and another addict is born.

Wait... how popular do you think pot is?

US-Americans use between 17.9 and 23.8 million pounds of pot per year.

While less than the use of alcohol and tobacco, it's more than pretty much every other illegal and legal (prescriptions, OTC, etc) abused drug.

Pot smokers don't just get the munchies and lack motivation because they are doing something 'forbidden', it's the drug screwing up their brain. And once your brain is screwed up, you aren't in a fit state to decide whether you should be partaking or not.

You still haven't shown any evidence that long-term use causes severe brain damage. The one or two studies I've seen are preliminary, suffer from issues like not being blinded, and generally can't be replicated. And that's just the start of the laundry list of problems with these things.

To be blunt, your opinion doesn't count because you are a user. Of course you advocate 'freedom' and 'personal responsibility' and 'legalize all drugs', but that's only because you need an excuse to justify your addiction. It's the drug talking...

Wow.

You know what?

You can shove it. You're gonna treat me like that because I use a little pot once or twice a year, than I won't have a conversation with you.

**** off.

 

[RandFan]

On a side note, the experiment I had in mind for marijuana looks like it will happen. Washington and Colorado have voted to make it legal at the state level (while Oregon's measure didn't pass). We should look and see what the consequences are. Nothing like an experiment to figure out which side of the argument is better.

We've had sufficient social experiment. Pot is used daily around the world with little negative effects due to the pot use itself. In countries like Portugal they are emptying prisons and the drug rate is falling because the focus on treatment and not punishment.

It's silly to pretend that we don't yet know the basic risk of pot. We do know. It's very low relative to tobacco and alcohol. Imprisoning drug offenders has shown little to no efficacy. It's a waste of our time and resources.

 

[mgidm86]

Wow.

You know what?

You can shove it. You're gonna treat me like that because I use a little pot once or twice a year, than I won't have a conversation with you.

**** off.

I love it!

You make very calm and reasonable arguments against very ignorant and stupid statements. My father, who I consider "Mr. Logic", completely loses his perspective when I discuss marijuana with him. I used to smoke, and I think it should be legal.

Any argument for criminalizing pot can be applied much stronger to alcohol or tobacco...the latter two are far deadlier than marijuana. There is zero logic in the pot laws.

Pothead kills family in head on collision.
Pothead drives car through crowd of pedestrians.
Pothead stabs rival fan at football game.
Pothead beats his wife after getting high.
Pothead starts fight at bar.
Pothead has liver failure, mouth cancer, stomach cancer etc etc. Scerosis.
Pothead ran over my sister on her bicycle when she was 11 (she lived, barely).

Sounds pretty bad, except you'd have to substitute the word "pothead" with "drunkard" to make it accurate.

Not saying some of those can't happen with pot, but most are a daily occurrence with alcohol, some many many times over. If you enjoy an occasional glass of wine at night, then how can you be against pot and not be a complete hypocrite? If you're against alcohol too then at least you're consistent.

Perhaps pot should be legal and alcohol criminalized? It makes more sense.

 

[Mycroft]

Perhaps pot should be legal and alcohol criminalized? It makes more sense.

Naw. Booze is just too convenient and tasty. Best to make them both legal.

 

[RandFan]

Pothead kills family in head on collision.
Pothead drives car through crowd of pedestrians.
Pothead stabs rival fan at football game.
Pothead beats his wife after getting high.
Pothead starts fight at bar.
Pothead has liver failure, mouth cancer, stomach cancer etc etc. Scerosis.
Pothead ran over my sister on her bicycle when she was 11 (she lived, barely).

Sounds pretty bad, except you'd have to substitute the word "pothead" with "drunkard" to make it accurate.

We are puppets. The people who make money from illegal drugs tell us it's dangerous and we, idiotically, become their little soldiers extolling the dangers of pot when the data just doesn't match the level of fear and rhetoric.

 

[cosmicaug]

I think maybe one possible way to circumvent that would a grower's ID. The ID itself is free. What you pay for on a subscription basis (yearly, quarterly, or monthly) is the amount of plants you grow. I wouldn't know what to charge for each separate plant. I would personally say $0.50 (so $5 for ten plants, $10 for twenty, and so on), but I don't know enough about economics and costs like this to make that estimation. I'd have to leave it to people more knowledgeable than I.

Of course, enforcing the ID is something I would not know how to implement, either. I'm not sure how I feel about cops randomly knocking on people's doors to ensure that they're following the terms of the ID, so this idea could ultimately be a failure on that end. It is one possible suggestion, though, and I'd be up for any suggestion that would allow private citizens to grow their own because I would prefer it if the tobacco industry kept their grubby, crap-adding hands off of my weed. I just know they would dilute the THC and add all these other additives and crap to it. Why? Because they do something similar to tobacco already.

Do it like with alcohol. A small amount for personal use would be OK & would not require special permits. A farming operation would. It would not remove the issues you mention but it would be a start.

 

[cosmicaug]

I didn't want to quote your whole post, although I did read it. I'm interested in how you would respond to this objection?

What are we to do when the activity itself harms someone's ability to make decisions? The addiction model includes the idea that some substances self-reinforce, so that choice leaves the building at some point. If the substance itself is driving the outcome and a free choice is no longer available, does society have a duty to step in?

Not Nate but I'll answer. It's not an unreasonable objection. However, the prohibitionist model seems to be doing little to address this issue. Sure, if you compare some idealized version of prohibition which actually works to significantly reduce drug use and is free of collateral harms (which has never existed and never will) with the real bad effects of many drugs (and ignoring any potential positives) then the prohibition model wins.

It also goes without saying that if we accept the premise regarding how se;f-reinforcement justifies prohibition the prioritization of the prohibition of cannabis would probably have to be below the prioritization of the prohibition of alcohol (yes, I understand that this is only an argument against legalization/decriminalization of various drugs if you don't believe that alcohol should be prohibited).

 

[cosmicaug]

Pot damages the brain. More and more studies are coming out showing this to be true. At what point will you admit that it's harmful, and that you shouldn't be advocating it?

Without even going into the issues with many of these studies, is this meant to be the be all and end all criterion of whether something should be made illegal? If so, again, I don't think there's any doubt that alcohol should be made illegal (in fact, the same case could be made for tobacco cigarettes). As to Nate's inability to admit to harm, I must assume that this deals with his comments in other posts which I have either forgotten or never read in the first place because otherwise your comment looks like a complete non sequitur.

They really do alter the mind in ways which interfere with the body's regulatory systems, and short-circuit the reward system which the brain uses to reinforce positive behavior.

Only some illegal drugs directly interfere dopamine systems (I believe this angle is vastly overemphasized in research). In any case, whether a drug is legal or illegal in a given legal regime does not determine its effect on dopaminergic systems.

If Pot is decriminalized than maybe a few people won't try it because it's 'boring', but I bet a lot more will try it because it's less taboo and easier to obtain (just like tobacco and alcohol are now). And once they do try it, boom! - they discover how to get the reward without doing any work, and another addict is born.

The same alarmist drivel which somehow always fails to materialize when cannabis legal regimes are liberalized.

Pot smokers don't just get the munchies and lack motivation because they are doing something 'forbidden', it's the drug screwing up their brain. And once your brain is screwed up, you aren't in a fit state to decide whether you should be partaking or not.

Everything you do changes your brain permanently so that, in itself, need not be existentially terrifying. There are also temporary effects which would account such things as "the munchies". This is also the case with plenty of unregulated and OTC drugs. Are you suggesting that I am not in a state to decide whether I should be popping a few Benadryls to deal with allergic rhinitis because I have consumed them in the past?

To be blunt, your opinion doesn't count because you are a user. Of course you advocate 'freedom' and 'personal responsibility' and 'legalize all drugs', but that's only because you need an excuse to justify your addiction. It's the drug talking...

Riiight!

 

[marplots]

Not Nate but I'll answer. It's not an unreasonable objection. However, the prohibitionist model seems to be doing little to address this issue. Sure, if you compare some idealized version of prohibition which actually works to significantly reduce drug use and is free of collateral harms (which has never existed and never will) with the real bad effects of many drugs (and ignoring any potential positives) then the prohibition model wins.

It also goes without saying that if we accept the premise regarding how se;f-reinforcement justifies prohibition the prioritization of the prohibition of cannabis would probably have to be below the prioritization of the prohibition of alcohol (yes, I understand that this is only an argument against legalization/decriminalization of various drugs if you don't believe that alcohol should be prohibited).

I think Nate's answer was good, and paired with yours makes a defensible position. However, there is another side. I smoke. I am addicted to cigarettes in a fashion and they are habit forming (which at least compares to drugs other than marijuana).

I am told that at least partly, my addiction is the result of marketing -- in that smoking cigarettes was presented as a reasonable thing to do, and even came with benefits. I do not know how much of my current habit can be blamed on anything other than my own continuous choice to keep smoking. But there is an idea that society should, if not prohibit sales of dangerous substances, at least make sure that users are fully informed of the risks and take measures to see that those risks do not cost society at large. For example, the argument about the healthcare costs of smoking related illnesses.

The basic idea is some form of, "I actually am my brother's keeper." As much as I want personal freedom and so would not deny it to someone else, I still react badly when presented with someone who continuously makes what I see as a poor choice.

Do I do any harm at all to society at large because I smoke tobacco, and am I at all the victim of outside forces that might drive my behavior for profit?

 

[NateHevens]

Not Nate but I'll answer. It's not an unreasonable objection. However, the prohibitionist model seems to be doing little to address this issue. Sure, if you compare some idealized version of prohibition which actually works to significantly reduce drug use and is free of collateral harms (which has never existed and never will) with the real bad effects of many drugs (and ignoring any potential positives) then the prohibition model wins.

It also goes without saying that if we accept the premise regarding how self-reinforcement justifies prohibition the prioritization of the prohibition of cannabis would probably have to be below the prioritization of the prohibition of alcohol (yes, I understand that this is only an argument against legalization/decriminalization of various drugs if you don't believe that alcohol should be prohibited).

Also a great answer to the question... much better than mine, as mine is based off my own experiences.

As to Nate's inability to admit to harm, I must assume that this deals with his comments in other posts which I have either forgotten or never read in the first place because otherwise your comment looks like a complete non sequitur.

I just want to point out that in my all of 50 posts on this forum, my recent posts on this thread are the first time I've ever commented about marijuana on this particular forum.

ETA:
Okay, I have to post a retraction. Back on a thread I started about electronic cigarettes in 2009, I noted how cool it'd be to see synthesized THC (as opposed to nicotine) for the juices for e-cigs, as well as a post on a thread about binaural beats (at the time I thought they were a thing, now I know they're just more quackery).

And yes, I admit that smoking marijuana can cause harm. The inhalation of tar and carcinogens can cause numerous health issues and cancers* (as will the inhalation of any burned material), especially with the lungs and throat. This is why I much prefer, on the few occasions I do imbibe, bongs or vapes. In both cases these negatives are minimized or even eliminated.

As for the brain damage, the jury is not actually in on that, yet. Scientific studies on this, as has been pointed out numerous times in this thread, tend to be flawed. And Carl Sagan, or Mr. X, would beg to differ with the idea of marijuana causing brain damage. After all... he certainly wasn't brain damaged.




*Just a note that I'm fully aware that some studies suggest that marijuana, or specifically the cannibanoid CBD (cannabidiol), might have the potential of slowing down, or even curing, cancer. Please understand that testing has only been done in petri dishes and rats, which doesn't say much for the efficacy in humans. Also be aware that CBD is not a psychoactive cannibanoid, and is easily removed from marijuana, such that a non-psychoactive pill could be easily made from it with marijuana itself remaining illegal.

It'd be one thing if it was THC that did this, but it's not... it's CBD.

I think Nate's answer was good, and paired with yours makes a defensible position. However, there is another side. I smoke. I am addicted to cigarettes in a fashion and they are habit forming (which at least compares to drugs other than marijuana).

I am told that at least partly, my addiction is the result of marketing -- in that smoking cigarettes was presented as a reasonable thing to do, and even came with benefits. I do not know how much of my current habit can be blamed on anything other than my own continuous choice to keep smoking. But there is an idea that society should, if not prohibit sales of dangerous substances, at least make sure that users are fully informed of the risks and take measures to see that those risks do not cost society at large. For example, the argument about the healthcare costs of smoking related illnesses.

The basic idea is some form of, "I actually am my brother's keeper." As much as I want personal freedom and so would not deny it to someone else, I still react badly when presented with someone who continuously makes what I see as a poor choice.

Do I do any harm at all to society at large because I smoke tobacco, and am I at all the victim of outside forces that might drive my behavior for profit?

I would argue that it depends on when you started smoking. If it was any time within the last, I think, 5 years, then it can't be advertisement since they haven't had cigarette advertisements on TV for a really long time, while they've had some really powerful anti-cigarette commercials on TV for at least 5 years now.

Plus, I'm not 100% sure how I feel about blaming a consumer market for your personal choices. While I don't exactly object to the principle behind "I am my brother's keeper", I don't, for example, think someone who's been eating McDonald's meals every single day, breakfast, lunch, and dinner, for years gets to sue McDonald's for "making them fat" (I'll thank people to not bring up the hot coffee lawsuit, as that was not at all a frivolous lawsuit considering the actual details of the case).

Yes, society plays a role in our decisions, and whether or not we have actual free will is a question as yet unanswered. However, at some point, we have to accept personal responsibility for our own actions.

If you want to quit, but don't think you can do it alone, all you have to do is ask for help.

 

[luchog]

The basic idea is some form of, "I actually am my brother's keeper." As much as I want personal freedom and so would not deny it to someone else, I still react badly when presented with someone who continuously makes what I see as a poor choice.

What it ultimately comes down to is personal responsibility. The moment you abnegate personal responsibility, you start down the road to repression. A long road, admittedly, but there is no clear stopping point on the way. You've replaced a clear, defensible boundary with a vague, whimsical personal preference, and, ultimately, ochlocracy. The right of personal self-determination is the most fundamental of all rights, and the foundation on which all other rights are based. Once you've removed that, for any reason, any other restriction or elimination of rights can easily be justified on the same grounds. This is especially true when individual rights are deemed inferior to the rights of the collective, however the collective is defined.

This is why drug laws, prostitution laws, and nearly all other victimless crime laws are based on collectivist justifications. A common comment in this thread is that the US drug laws are based on racism (which, ultimately, was a justification using ethnicity-based collectivism). Others rightfully noted that this only applied to the US, not to the drug laws of other countries. So what are the drug laws of other countries based on? Throughout history, all have been based on collectivist principles; almost universally Religion. It's only in the modern world that any attempt at rationality has been attempted; and even then, it's typically been a thin veneer of rationality over a religious or other collectivist ideology. Once you get into collectivist justification, any travesty, any horror can be justified as long as it is believed to "protect" the collective.

And before someone starts screaming "Alarmism" and "Slippery Slope Fallacy", we've already seen just how far and how quickly groups will slide down that slope. The most notable examples are former Communist-bloc nations, and current Islamic theocracies. Someone, I believe it was Lowpro, posted a list of countries that were apparently positive examples of how to handle drug prohibition enforcement. Interesting that said examples were some of the most repressive countries in the world, mostly theocratic, with some of the most draconian punishments, up to and including death. And they still have serious issues with drug addition in the populace.

If you prevent someone from making poor choices, then by definition they do not have choices. And has been previously noted, the moment you give any entity the power to decide what choices that people are allowed to make for their own lives, there is no guarantee that said entity will always agree with you on which choices are "good" and to be allowed, and which choices are "evil" and should be punished. Because without the hard and fast objective criteria to refer to, the decision ultimately becomes nothing more than the idiosyncratic preferences of whatever group manages to gain and hold that power. And any criteria used for making decisions potentially limiting bad

That is not to say that social programs for addicts are bad, only that they should be optional. and not all restrictions of choice are bad, but they should fall within a very narrow range of criteria. The only time that any individual should be restricted from making choice is when they have an clear negative impact on the safety or security of another individual without their consent; or when their choices have a clear and negative impact on their own health and security, and they are unable to make informed choices due to age or medically demonstrable mental incompetence. The latter is a somewhat tricky category, though. Medically, it's simple enough to demonstrate. I'd like to include mental illness in there as well, but that has too much potential for abuse, for powers that be classifying any "deviant" or undesirable behaviour as "mental illness", and incarcerating them in institutions to "cure" them. Again, not alarmism, we've seen this done already with the former Soviet Union; and in the US, we see religious fundamentalists trying do this with homosexuals. (Unlike religious fundamentalists in the Middle East, who just execute them.)

That reminds me, one important thing that I did not see addressed in this thread (which I admittedly just skimmed half of), is that a very large percentage, possibly the majority, of drug abuse is due to the abusers self-medicating for mental illness, often undiagnosed mental illness. Criminalizing drug use and incarcerating users will not do anything to remedy this situation, and will only exacerbate it, as it's effectively criminalizing mental illness. In fact, that's exactly what's happening. Many addicts are afraid to see help for their addiction, or are unable to do so because of lack of funds and the lack of available assistance programs. Some areas do provide addiction treatment for convicted drug users, but these are typically ineffectual 12-Step, methadone, or similar programs that focus entirely on the drug use, and do nothing to treat the underlying causes.

 

[dudalb]

A.I think that Pot probably does have some harmful side effects.
B.The negative impact of these side effects on Society is less then the problems created by the stupid "War on Drugs".

 

[RandFan]

A.I think that Pot probably does have some harmful side effects.
B.The negative impact of these side effects on Society is less then the problems created by the stupid "War on Drugs".

Far, far, far, far less. Did I say "far"? It's big time mucho less.