New Study documents the brain damage caused by marijuana

[NateHevens]

No one... and I mean no one... is denying that marijuana has negative side-effects.

Everything has negative side-effects. Frickin' water can kill you. So can oxygen. Yet we need both of those things to live.

The issue is how bad those negative side-effects are compared to the negative consequences of the war on drugs; and they aren't even in balance.

Add on to that the many potential (not definite, but potential... further study id required) medicinal benefits of marijuana, and it quickly becomes obvious that prohibition is quite simply a bad idea.

Again, I'm watching Colorado and Washington state very closely. My hope is that Obama does the same thing; just watches. Like I've already said once in this thread... I predict that both states will be the first out of the recession, and the first two states with employment rates to increase sharply. The reason I say that is simple: I don't care how lazy marijuana makes you (and there really isn't any evidence that it does); you can't get marijuana without money, and you can't get money legally without a job.

Again... watch them be the first two states out of the recession, and watch their employment rates skyrockets.

 

[cosmicaug]

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).

Why synthesized THC? Anyway, e-cigs would not work because you need a much higher temperature to vaporize THC than to vaporize nicotine. But the same concept using higher temperatures exists. I'm not linking to it in case it bothers someone (I just happened to run into an example without even looking and remembered your comment).

 

[NateHevens]

Why synthesized THC?

Synthesized may be the wrong word. What I'm going for is, essentially, do the same thing they did with nicotine (for the e-cigs) with THC. Create a THC liquid of sorts that can be mixed with flavored liquids for an e-cig-like personal vaporizer?

Anyway, e-cigs would not work because you need a much higher temperature to vaporize THC than to vaporize nicotine. But the same concept using higher temperatures exists. I'm not linking to it in case it bothers someone (I just happened to run into an example without even looking and remembered your comment).

I know of two... the Pax Vaporizer by Ploom and the Magic Flight Launch Box. I have the latter, but I want the former...

 

[marplots]

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. (snipped to keep it manageable)

I see a couple of problems with this. First, on what grounds do you claim a right for an individual that is not also a right for the collective? The slippery slope of "social justification" doesn't revolve around the collective forcing behavior on me, but representation in that collective, so that a dictatorship is not pushing the goals of society as much as pushing the goals of an individual, and this is so for any top heavy structure. It's not a question about whether a collective should have sway over it's members, but a critique of a political system.

With this in mind, there is a feedback. Harm to society harms individuals within it by way of limiting opportunities and benefits from that society. For example, laws against producing dangerous goods supports every member of a society which adopts those laws, and they can only be enforced at the level of the group -- that's the level at which the harm happens, a corporation.

On the flip side, collective goods also accrue. Institutions like universities and public works are goods flowing from the same source as the ills of oppression.

Finally, the question becomes: Do I have the right to prohibit your behavior before it actually harms me? A loaded example would be whether drunk driving should be illegal. It doesn't always cause harm and we often punish people before they do any damage at all. If I can show that marijuana use has the potential to harm others, would that be enough to restrict it?

 

[cosmicaug]

With this in mind, there is a feedback. Harm to society harms individuals within it by way of limiting opportunities and benefits from that society. For example, laws against producing dangerous goods supports every member of a society which adopts those laws, and they can only be enforced at the level of the group -- that's the level at which the harm happens, a corporation.

While some are making a libertarian argument (we shouldn't have prohibition just because...) the case repeatedly being made by many (including me) is that prohibition harms society.

Finally, the question becomes: Do I have the right to prohibit your behavior before it actually harms me? A loaded example would be whether drunk driving should be illegal. It doesn't always cause harm and we often punish people before they do any damage at all. If I can show that marijuana use has the potential to harm others, would that be enough to restrict it?

I think many here are suggesting it would be a good thing if cannabis were merely restricted like alcohol.

 

[Halfcentaur]

Again... watch them be the first two states out of the recession, and watch their employment rates skyrockets.

On a side note, there are state economies that were relatively untouched by the recession, my own state being one of them, Oklahoma.

On another side note, I don't think we'll see cannabis reform coming here for 20 years, barring something federal is done that initiates a national shift in regulation. But it's cool that Colorado touches our state right in the delicate and sensitive panhandle.

 

[NateHevens]

While some are making a libertarian argument (we shouldn't have prohibition just because...) the case repeatedly being made by many (including me) is that prohibition harms society.

It's not "just because". It's personal responsibility and whether or not we have the right to autonomy, as well as the individual's relationship to society as a whole.

The Libertarian argument is not "just because". It's "because the decision to get high is not a decision made by a society, but by individuals, and when you are locked in your own home with no intentions of traveling anywhere and out of public space, you are harming no one but, arguably, yourself, and society does not have a right to tell you that you may not harm yourself if you wish."

It's why I support things like assisted suicide, legalized and regulated prostitution, decriminalization of most drugs and legalization of the rest, and so on. It's also why I am pro-choice and support homosexual marriage (or, the government getting out of marriage entirely and upgrading civil unions to the federal status marriage currently enjoys).

I do not accept that that our actions in private effect the rest of society in anything but an emotional way, and that's only limited to family and friends, and emotional feelings are largely a personal choice, as well.

I'm all for criminalizing Driving Under the Influence. Once you are behind the wheel of a car, you are taking the lives of every driver on the road around you into your hands, as well as any passengers you might have and yourself. In that case, yes, pulling over someone for, say, driving drunk before they actually cause harm is a good idea.

But if someone wants to smoke pot in the privacy of their own home, I do not believe that society has the right to tell them they can't, any more than society has a right to tell two men they can't get married, or tell a woman who got pregnant because of a rape that she can't have an abortion.

I think many here are suggesting it would be a good thing if cannabis were merely restricted like alcohol.

Mostly. I'm not a fan of the way age limits are handled right now, but I don't complain about them either because they are better than certain ages having unrestricted access to certain drugs.

On a side note, there are state economies that were relatively untouched by the recession, my own state being one of them, Oklahoma.

I know. I meant of the states that were hit. And even then, I think the economies of Colorado and Washington state will outstrip even the untouched state economies in a few years... I wouldn't be surprised to see Colorado and Washington state with the two top economies in teh country within the next, say, 10 years or so...

On another side note, I don't think we'll see cannabis reform coming here for 20 years, barring something federal is done that initiates a national shift in regulation. But it's cool that Colorado touches our state right in the delicate and sensitive panhandle.

You might be right, but again... we need to watch Colorado, Washington state, and the Federal Government. The movements in the states could change everything, or it could be left alone for a couple decades just to see what happens...

 

[marplots]

While some are making a libertarian argument (we shouldn't have prohibition just because...) the case repeatedly being made by many (including me) is that prohibition harms society.

I agree. There are two arguments on offer. One set at the level of society at large and the other based on personal freedom. They are related, but have different outcomes, much in the way we balance tobacco -- a nod to societal ills and an allowance for personal choice.

 

[marplots]

(snipped a lot to get to this part)

I do not accept that that our actions in private effect the rest of society in anything but an emotional way, and that's only limited to family and friends, and emotional feelings are largely a personal choice, as well.

I like this, but I also think it's got a troubling nuance. When we speak about privacy in our own homes, it sounds like a complete distancing from society at large. Much like the private thoughts in my own head, the picture is one of separation and no interaction with the surrounding people.

But we know this isn't quite true. There's an extensive supply network for weed and other drugs that extends past the walls of the house where they are used. There's the matter of children as well, or maybe grandma lives there, I don't know. An extreme case would be a "drug house," where use is confined to the house, but it represents a nuisance to the neighborhood.

And then, for drugs besides marijuana, we have overdoses to consider. Do you get an ambulance for behavior you justify by segregating from society? What about the stuff you flush down the toilet? Not just the toxic crap you used to make your meth, but anything you toss in the trash?

If I live in an apartment building, should I be forbidden the use of my bong because my fellow tenants can smell it in the hall? What if I'm getting support from the government and using it to buy weed instead of hamburger?

None of the above corrupts the ideal of "a man in his castle" -- but don't we have that now? Surely, if I am separated from society enough to smoke weed in the privacy of my home, how would I ever be interfered with? A couple Supreme Court decisions will address this based on probable cause elements and illegal searches (things like a drug dog that alerts on your porch).

If we can manage to be separated from society in our homes, then we are as safe as if we think improper thoughts for all practical purposes. The only difference I can see is if the cops have another reason to invade your privacy and a drug charge gets tacked on.

 

[This is The End]

I just saw this new article on the front page of Google News. I assume someone in this thread might be interested:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/06/nih-marijuana-effects/1751011/

Marijuana's health effects: Memory problems, addiction

Marijuana can have wide-ranging effects, such as short-term memory loss and increased heart rate.

 

[NateHevens]

I like this, but I also think it's got a troubling nuance. When we speak about privacy in our own homes, it sounds like a complete distancing from society at large. Much like the private thoughts in my own head, the picture is one of separation and no interaction with the surrounding people.

Admittedly, you're right to note this. In an ideal world, this would indeed be the case. And of course, it's not.

But we know this isn't quite true. There's an extensive supply network for weed and other drugs that extends past the walls of the house where they are used. There's the matter of children as well, or maybe grandma lives there, I don't know. An extreme case would be a "drug house," where use is confined to the house, but it represents a nuisance to the neighborhood.

Most casual users (of the "soft" drugs like pot and LSD) know to use in places and situations where children, parents, grandparents, etc are not around. They are careful to respect shared spaces.

Addicts of harder drugs generally are, too, at least in my experience. Even after going to sometimes disturbing (and criminal) lengths to get their drugs, they'll find a confined, private space to use.

As for the "extensive supply network", the biggest problem is that it's a black market. I've yet to hear anyone complain about the "extensive supply network" of package stores and smoke shops, and there's a reason for that: anything sold on the black market is illegal; the alcohol sold in package stores is legal. And, ultimately, that's the distinction that matters.

Moral conservatives will hate the the rise of marijuana in head shops with it's legality at first, but give it one or two generations, and marijuana head shops will be as culturally obvious as package stores and smoke shops.

And then, for drugs besides marijuana, we have overdoses to consider. Do you get an ambulance for behavior you justify by segregating from society? What about the stuff you flush down the toilet? Not just the toxic crap you used to make your meth, but anything you toss in the trash?

Flushing toxic chemicals down the toilet impacts others. So then there'd be a reason to violate their rights as they're violating others' rights.

As for the ambulance... this is an interesting case. Technically, when we call an ambulance for someone who has overdosed on heroine, there's a chance that we're violating their rights. What if they wanted to overdose?

Of course, more often than not, when they recover, they will post-consent to the violation by thanking you, in which case you're safe... they didn't want to overdose, but they did. So this a gray area where you have to essentially be a social genius. It is far better for someone who knows the overdose victim well to cal the ambulance, because they are in a better position to judge the situation.

Essentially, it goes back to this: if the person wants to overdose, you do not have the right to stop them. If they don't, then you have the right, because they would want you to; they would ultimately consent to it. And generally, we know when somebody overdosed on purpose and when they did so by accident, because in the former case there are usually (key word, there) signs that won't be there in the latter case, hence why it's better for someone who knows them to be the judge.

Oh and yes, it's a decision that can be made in less than a second if you know the overdose victim well enough, because you'll likely already know.

If I live in an apartment building, should I be forbidden the use of my bong because my fellow tenants can smell it in the hall?

Somebody else has the right to not smell it. If you smoke in an apartment building where much of your home is shared (hallways and such), then you are violating their rights to not smell your weed... so no, you shouldn't.

What if I'm getting support from the government and using it to buy weed instead of hamburger?

This is a bit different... if you are accepting money on a welfare/charity basis, you have already agreed with the attached strings. If you violate the agreement, then it is right for that charitable person/the government to remove their help. It's a contract, essentially.

None of the above corrupts the ideal of "a man in his castle" -- but don't we have that now? Surely, if I am separated from society enough to smoke weed in the privacy of my home, how would I ever be interfered with? A couple Supreme Court decisions will address this based on probable cause elements and illegal searches (things like a drug dog that alerts on your porch).

We don't have this now. We are supposed to, but we don't. I know you don't think probable cause and illegal searches are never abused, but you need to read up on the history of the NYPD and marijuana... they abuse it continually, even though they've been warned, sued, and worse.

If we can manage to be separated from society in our homes, then we are as safe as if we think improper thoughts for all practical purposes. The only difference I can see is if the cops have another reason to invade your privacy and a drug charge gets tacked on.

If cops invade your privacy on, say, a murder charge, and they have a warrant for that case, by law, they have to ignore evidence of drug use, including bongs, a meth lab, and anything else. Technically, they can make a note of it and apply for a second warrant, but they cannot throw drug charges on you if that's not what they're there for.

Thing is, cops do, and they are given carte blanche to do this because of the War on Drugs.

I just saw this new article on the front page of Google News. I assume someone in this thread might be interested:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/06/nih-marijuana-effects/1751011/

Ugh.

• Impaired short-term memory. Marijuana use can make it hard to learn and retain information, particularly complex tasks.
• Slowed reaction time and impaired motor coordination. It can throw off athletic performance, impair driving skills and increase risk of injuries.
• Altered judgment and decision making. Experts say this can contribute to high-risk sexual behaviors that could lead to the spread of sexually transmitted diseases
• Increased heart rate. It can jump by 20% to 100%, which may increase the risk of heart attack, especially in otherwise vulnerable individuals.
• Altered mood. In some, marijuana can induce euphoria or calmness; in high doses it can cause anxiety and paranoia.

Note that all of these only occur while a person is high. Once they are sobered up, most of this goes away.

The agency says long-term marijuana abuse can lead to:

Addiction.

I still don't get this one.

I've seen this claim before, yet I've never in my life seen a physical marijuana addiction. Everyone I know who smokes can and has ceased use for months, years, and, in many cases, for good, without a problem. They just decided not to use it.

I can go months and years without using... I have.

I do think users can build a mental dependence, but a physical addiction?

I'm not buying it.

Poorer educational outcomes, poorer job performance and diminished life satisfaction.

Cognitive impairment persisting beyond the time of intoxication.

Honestly, the best evidence against these two is Carl Sagan.

Respiratory problems (chronic cough, bronchitis).

Yeah, if you smoke it.

Why is it that these things always ignore vaping and ingesting as an ingredient in food?

Risk of psychosis in vulnerable individuals.

Note: by "vulnerable individuals", they mean people who have already shown tendencies towards mental illness.

Marijuana cannot cause mental issues... but it will exacerbate issues already present. The key phrase here is "already present". If you do not already have a previous and obvious risk of mental issues, marijuana cannot pull them out of thin air.

ETA:
LOVE THIS!

Marijuana smokers breathed a puff of relief today as they lit up legally for the first time in Washington state and were not cited, ticketed, or arrested for what is still a federal offense.

“There are no federal agents out there busting people,” Seattle police Sgt. Sean Whitcomb said today, hours after a new state law legalizing pot went into effect. Seattle police spokesman Jonah Spangenthal-Lee wrote on the department’s blog, “The police department believes that, under state law, you may responsibly get baked, order some pizzas and enjoy a Lord of the Rings marathon in the privacy of your own home, if you want to.”

That... from Seattle police spokesman Jonah Spangenthal-Lee:

“The police department believes that, under state law, you may responsibly get baked, order some pizzas and enjoy a Lord of the Rings marathon in the privacy of your own home, if you want to.”

That is all this has been about: "... you may responsibly get baked, order some pizzas and enjoy a Lord of the Rings marathon in the privacy of your own home, if you want to.”

 

[Dancing David]

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?

Just aserting your conclusion is not really good argumentation, there is little to no evidence that MJ causes brain damage. An impairment in learning with no regression analysis of other drugs and events is worthless.

At what point will you show these studies and we can discuss them? The one in the OP is seriously flawed in analysis and does indicate an association between MJ and impaired learning, however it does not investigate any other causal factors and therefore any conclusions are worthless. What is the IQ of the subjects, their SES, possible brain injuries, learning disabilities what was the mothers history of alcohol use during pregnancy, what other drugs of choice did the subjects use?

 

[Dancing David]

I just saw this new article on the front page of Google News. I assume someone in this thread might be interested:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/06/nih-marijuana-effects/1751011/

It also impairs judgement and can cause panic attacks, however it is not shown to cause brain damage. The addiction profile is very low compared to other drugs of abuse.

 

[Dancing David]

I've seen this claim before, yet I've never in my life seen a physical marijuana addiction. Everyone I know who smokes can and has ceased use for months, years, and, in many cases, for good, without a problem. They just decided not to use it.

I can go months and years without using... I have.

I do think users can build a mental dependence, but a physical addiction?

Hi,
The physical withdrawal syndrome is not part of the definition of addiction, there is no main criteria for physical dependence. The criteria are all behavioral except for the sub criteria of withdrawal syndromes.

There is no real differences, addiction is a set of behaviors. Cocaine for years was touted as not being physically addicting, to those with heart damage it makes no differences.

Now compared to alcohol and nicotine MJ has such a low addiction rate it is negligible in epidemiology, however for the people whose lives are detrimented by MJ addiction the behaviors are just the same as for other drugs.

The issue of addiction is that an individuals life functioning is significantly impacted and that they have great difficulty not using.

For comparison, the actual withdrawal phase for nicotine is about three day (old data from a long time ago, could have changed), so if you go cold turkey then you are over that phase in three days. Most smokers don't know the difference between day 3 and day ten.

 

[RandFan]

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?

Please to provide facts and figures? BTW: life damages the brain. It really does. So please to avoid that?

Seriously Roger, life is itself a risk. The question becomes which activities in life cause inordinate risk? Which risks are not worth the trade offs?

Please give us more than "pot damages the brain". Hell, life damages the brain. Don't believe me? How many people over the age of 200 have healthy brains? I'm serious. That's not a joke. How many?

So you think that question is fatuous. Fine. Give me some hard data. How much damage? Does pot significantly reduce one's quality of life and if so by how much? Background radiation and life itself are harmful to the brain but no one is recommending ending it to save it.

 

[luchog]

I see a couple of problems with this. First, on what grounds do you claim a right for an individual that is not also a right for the collective?

The collective does not have rights, it is not a person, or even a discrete entity. "Society" is simply a group of individuals who choose to abide by a certain set of customs for mutual benefit. Some of those customs are given the weight of force and are called laws. The problem is that which customs hold sway depends entirely on the whims of those who are able to enforce them; unless some objective criteria can be found on which to base said customs and enforcement.

With this in mind, there is a feedback. Harm to society harms individuals within it by way of limiting opportunities and benefits from that society.

Except that there is no such thing as harm to society, only harm to individuals. Society is a convenient fiction, not a discrete entity; an abstraction, not a real thing; a map, not a territory. It is often a necessary fiction, but a fiction nonetheless. To claim that such a fiction has "rights" is an anthropomorphic fallacy. To put the "rights" of an anthropomorphic fiction above the rights of real individuals is to invite repression of individuals who do not accede to the whims of those creating and promoting the anthropomorphism.

Finally, the question becomes: Do I have the right to prohibit your behavior before it actually harms me? A loaded example would be whether drunk driving should be illegal. It doesn't always cause harm and we often punish people before they do any damage at all. If I can show that marijuana use has the potential to harm others, would that be enough to restrict it?

Drunk driving isn't equivalent. Individuals have a right to freedom of movement; but have no right to drive on publicly owned and maintained streets. Its is a privilege that is granted to those who abide by the customs established for its use. One of those customs is that risk to other users be reasonably minimized. Driving under the influence of alcohol carries an objectively measurable risk of serious harm to others, and therefore is prohibited by a custom which is given the force of law. Being drunk in and of itself does not impose such a risk on others, and is therefore not prohibited. Just like using cannabis does not impose a risk of harm on others, only on one's self, therefore to prohibit it is to violate the right of self-determination. Using cannabis and operating a motor vehicle creates an unjustifiable risk of harm to others, and is rightly prohibited.

Being flawed and imperfect humans, there will always be gray areas with regard to the places where individual rights and responsibilities overlap, and there will always be some subjectivity and human judgment involved in every decision within that gray area. However, there is not nearly so much gray as collectivists and relativists would like to believe, and even when there is, it's always best to err on the side of individual rights and responsibility; because the other way lies oppression.

 

[marplots]

I see a couple of problems with this. First, on what grounds do you claim a right for an individual that is not also a right for the collective?

The collective does not have rights, it is not a person, or even a discrete entity. "Society" is simply a group of individuals who choose to abide by a certain set of customs for mutual benefit. Some of those customs are given the weight of force and are called laws. The problem is that which customs hold sway depends entirely on the whims of those who are able to enforce them; unless some objective criteria can be found on which to base said customs and enforcement.

One of the most common collective rights is the right of sovereignty, another is the right to self defense. Many of these are codified by the UN and many others by treaties. Nations are the natural unit of comparison because most rights become visible where they collide with other's rights, so that the right to control your borders doesn't make sense on an individual basis, but does when comparing collectives.

With this in mind, there is a feedback. Harm to society harms individuals within it by way of limiting opportunities and benefits from that society.

Except that there is no such thing as harm to society, only harm to individuals. Society is a convenient fiction, not a discrete entity; an abstraction, not a real thing; a map, not a territory. It is often a necessary fiction, but a fiction nonetheless. To claim that such a fiction has "rights" is an anthropomorphic fallacy. To put the "rights" of an anthropomorphic fiction above the rights of real individuals is to invite repression of individuals who do not accede to the whims of those creating and promoting the anthropomorphism.

Because societies are composed of individuals, harm to society certainly does entail harm to individuals. But this is no different than claiming that if you shoot me, you've not harmed me, but only some subset of cells that compose my body. I might agree, on a mereological basis, that talking about my body is just a convenient fiction, since really, all we are talking about is cells, but it seems rational to talk about the larger unit when some harm affects a large swath.

One of the purposes of a society and the larger construct is precisely to determine how a conflict between individual rights should play out. As soon as you have to individuals with claims of individual rights that conflict, you need a meta-level to adjudicate. When Solomon decrees the child should be cleft in twain, he is not acting as an individual, he is acting as the voice of a larger society and does have the right to interfere based on a higher level agreement. It is not anthropomorphizing to say that one society is acting justly and another with evil intent, no more than it is false to say my actions are the same, despite the obvious innocence of my kidneys.

Finally, the question becomes: Do I have the right to prohibit your behavior before it actually harms me? A loaded example would be whether drunk driving should be illegal. It doesn't always cause harm and we often punish people before they do any damage at all. If I can show that marijuana use has the potential to harm others, would that be enough to restrict it?

Drunk driving isn't equivalent. Individuals have a right to freedom of movement; but have no right to drive on publicly owned and maintained streets.

But here you seem to be saying, with the words "publicly owned" that society does have the right, as a collective, to the road?

Its is a privilege that is granted to those who abide by the customs established for its use. One of those customs is that risk to other users be reasonably minimized. Driving under the influence of alcohol carries an objectively measurable risk of serious harm to others, and therefore is prohibited by a custom which is given the force of law.

And here again, the measurable risk is not measured against an individual, but a statistical measure based on many individuals. How is this valid if you hold that the important bit is the individual? Shouldn't the government be required to prove that you individually, in this instance, represented a threat? Of course not, because we do recognize the validity of collectives and general risk based on the notion of "generally harmful."

Being flawed and imperfect humans, there will always be gray areas with regard to the places where individual rights and responsibilities overlap, and there will always be some subjectivity and human judgment involved in every decision within that gray area.

And the best way we have found to decide these things is by polling the collective.

However, there is not nearly so much gray as collectivists and relativists would like to believe, and even when there is, it's always best to err on the side of individual rights and responsibility; because the other way lies oppression.

I live in a society which agrees with you. Other societies do not. How well your individual preferences match up to the larger societal mores will determine how much you think you are being oppressed and how much you feel you are being protected.

I would feel oppressed if I lived in Singapore under their chewing gum ban (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewing_gum_ban_in_Singapore) although I have read that the population supports the government there. This is another reason to talk about society as a collective term, when answering questions about oppression in broad terms. It would be correct to say that, as an individual, I feel unnecessarily constrained by the ban, but as a society, it isn't considered oppressive.

To say that alcohol abuse doesn't harm society is to ignore the same sort of statistical analysis used to justify risk and drunk driving when it is applied to lost work days, lowered GDP and increased health costs. These are real items, best expressed on the level of the collective and as harms/costs to society.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I'm from Nebraska. When we shoot things, it's because we want to eat em' or make them leave our boyfriends alone.
~Penny

*swoons*

Stoners rarely, if ever, want to punch anyone, but drinking makes you want to punch a stoner, really hard... What's wrong with this picture?

Nothing?

I am wondering what kind of smoke they used to do this, hell there is so much different kind of grass out there it would be silly to say it's all the same. Smokers know some stuff is laced and some just good kind bud, don't seem like a real honest study could ever be made on all of it.

Let's' sign up and try to help them with our next study.

-Who knows how many people overdose due to purity issues.

Find the cost of freedom
buried in the ground
mother earth will swallow you
lay your body down

This thread is about possible brain damage caused by marijuana.

It was. At one point.

Here's a recent victory in the War On Drugs: a SWAT team in Billings, Montana recently dropped a flash grenade on a 12 year old girl during a no-knock raid. She suffered first and second degree burns on the side of her body.

Second degree burns can be gotten from serious sunburn. (Blistery)
I am glad she wasn't hurt worse, such as third degree burns, which might have left her unable to heal.

"why they burned a child."

Interesting rhetoric there ...
Looks to me as though this bit of police work could use some review. The RoE seems loose, to me.

26 people shot here last night, 2 fatally.
Yay war on drugs!

Two points.
1: with a bit of marksmanship training, those lads will get a better pK than 2/26.
2: Legalize pot (which I am generally for) and they'll still shoot each other over coke and ice distribution.

It was almost all gang violence, and that is fueled by gangs fighting over drug terriotory. The guns are purchased with drug money.

How do you think the gangs make money? Illegal drugs are their lifeblood. Just like illegal alcohol fueled the mafia wars of the 1920s.

Tha Gangster Disciples than you for your support.

Those guys could do a wine cooler commercial, if they get the right agent.
Wildcat, you know that there was more to the Mafia income than booze. Also extortion, running numbers, prostitution. Give those guys credit, they diversified.

Some people like to smoke weed. They like it enough to risk doing it illegally. I doubt they would stop liking it if you told them there was some long term, poor medical outcome (if there were, hypothetically).

Aye.

Decriminalize drugs and the problem largely goes away (see the Portugal example).

Cookie cutter reasoning, and a host of assumptions.
That said, I agree on pot. We have been through this before. "Legalize drugs" is a dead meme, and not a reasoned position. The Portuguese tried something that fit their situation, with some good results. I don't pretend that things scale up evenly from small to large. Why do you? I would think that being a computer programmer, you understand some of the problems in scaling things up. I am also not sold on our having identical initial conditions.

My cop friends report that dealing with folks on pot and folks on meth is a whole different ball of wax.

They also deal with drunks on a regular basis.

Me, I'd be more supportive of the incremental approach here.
Pot, acid and E strike me as a good place to take a baby step and see how it works out.

There is sufficient medical data to demonstrate that entire families of recreational chemicals (morphine, heroin, coke, meth, etc) are non-trivially harmful as well as addictive. I see no reason not to keep those chemicals in a controlled status. It's what doctors, people who know a bit about science, tend to advocate.

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.

That post is not quite accurate.

Could you go back and read his post again?

 

[RandFan]

Cookie cutter reasoning, and a host of assumptions.

Please to explain?

That said, I agree on pot. We have been through this before. "Legalize drugs" is a dead meme, and not a reasoned position. The Portuguese tried something that fit their situation, with some good results. I don't pretend that things scale up evenly from small to large. Why do you? I would think that being a computer programmer, you understand some of the problems in scaling things up. I am also not sold on our having identical initial conditions.

Let's back up. What evidence do you have that our current laws are working? Prohibiton resulted in lots of crime and little to show for it. What evidence do you have that moving from a prosecution position to a treatment position will be worse for society? Oh, and Darth, one more thing, please to skip the silly browbeating. I promise you it's lost on me. There is nothing about drugs that I know of to suggest that the Portugal plan won't work. Your "scale" claim is just ad hoc reasoning. And accusing me of "pretending" is just manipulative rhetoric.

My cop friends report that dealing with folks on pot and folks on meth is a whole different ball of wax.

No kidding. No one has argued otherwise. This isn't advancing the discussion.

They also deal with drunks on a regular basis.

Me, I'd be more supportive of the incremental approach here.
Pot, acid and E strike me as a good place to take a baby step and see how it works out.

Well, that's some progress. You are willing to try other approaches.

There is sufficient medical data to demonstrate that entire families of recreational chemicals (morphine, heroin, coke, meth, etc) are non-trivially harmful as well as addictive. I see no reason not to keep those chemicals in a controlled status. It's what doctors, people who know a bit about science, tend to advocate.

This isn't a valid argument. You are stating the obvious and then stating what you can't see. Not at all compelling. We know drugs are dangerous. That's not at all at issue. Stating that they are dangerous is just demagoguery and doesn't advance the discussion.

You can do better Darth. Make an argument for why our current laws are working. Make an argument for why the Portuguese model can't work for us. Casting doubt because we are a larger nation isn't a valid argument. Getting rid of prohibition didn't fail because America is a large nation. You need a compelling positive argument in the face of evidence (Portuguese model) and frankly you are just throwing out weak negative arguments. You've not presented a single positive argument in favor of the status quo. None.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Please to explain?

You are advocating a cookie cutter solution, from Portugal, be applied to the US. Cut and paste. This is the second time in the past year you and I have addressed this very topic. Your belief in Portugal having the answer borders on woo. As I noted, they have tried something that seems to work for their situation.

Let's back up. What evidence do you have that our current laws are working?

First, what do you think they are intended to do?
Once we agree on that, then you and I can try to see if it achieves that end.

? Oh, and Darth, one more thing, please to skip the silly browbeating. I promise you it's lost on me. There is nothing about drugs that I know of to suggest that the Portugal plan won't work. Your "scale" claim is just ad hoc reasoning.

How about you stop the hand waving. My point is a counter to your gross assumption that a cookie cutter solution is available. Not the same initial condition. Not the same situation.

Well, that's some progress. You are willing to try other approaches.

I always have been. You have previously pretended that because I object to your "legalize drugs" throwaway line that somehow I don't agree with legalizing pot.
I have had that position since I was a teen.

We know drugs are dangerous. That's not at all at issue.

Which drugs, and how dangerous? That's the freaking point, Rand. Which drugs aren't as dangerous and which are more dangerous. Once assessed, consider what controls are in place and modify or leave in place.
They aren't all the same. See booze for fifty, Alex.

Stating that they are dangerous is just demagoguery and doesn't advance the discussion.

Please, Rand, enough of your hand waving.

The fact that the medical profession, backed by science, has controls (prescriptions) for certain families of drugs, and that we have punishments for folks who distribute such drugs outside of a prescription, is science backing up why cocaine, heroin, morphine, and a whole host of other drugs -- which are also used recreationally -- should not be legalized beyond their current controlled status.

Recall that in the early part of the 20th century, cocaine was not a controlled substance. Over time, science and the medical profession figured out that cocaine ought to be controlled. So no, Don't legalize cocaine. Sorry, science isn't your friend on that one.

Go with the science, Rand. You are pissing up the wrong tree on this part of the discussion.

You can do better Darth. Make an argument for why our current laws are working.

Why do you demand that?
That isn't the topic of this thread.
I'd also like to ask you what you think their intent is?
Once we agree that, as above, we can examine their effectiveness.

The war on drugs?
**** me, Rand, I was criticizing that back in the 80's when I was in the Navy chasing down sail boats off the coast of California while coke and dope and other stuff were coming into Long Beach in freaking container ships.

Are you done trying to play pigeon hole, or not?