New Study documents the brain damage caused by marijuana

[RandFan]

¹You 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.

²First, 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.

³How 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.

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.

⁴Which 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.

Please, Rand, enough of your hand waving.

⁶The 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.

⁷Recall 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.

⁸Go with the science, Rand. You are pissing up the wrong tree on this part of the discussion.

⁹Why 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.

¹⁰Are you done trying to play pigeon hole, or not?

1. This is just ad hoc rationalization. Even if I grant you the premise it doesn't mean that it won't work. It would just call it into doubt. Before you are going to engage in this argument you need a reason why it won't work.
2. Like the laws against alcohol consumption during prohibition they have many purposes. I don't claim that they are incapable of meeting specific needs of fighting crime. I contend that they are harmful to our society. They result in increased crime, fill up our prisons and cost us lots of money.
3. You haven't countered anything. You simply made an ad hoc assertion. We have a number of fairly succesful models. Ending prohibition. Scandanavia. Portugal. In the face of that evidence you need much more than just "it's cookie cutter". That's not an argument. It's an assertion with little meaning.
4. Intirely irrelevant to the discussion. I'm not advocating zero regulation. I'm advocating the Portugese model.
5. Again, this is entirely irrelevant. We have solid evidence that alcohol and tobacco kill but we don't ban them and spend billions to stop the black market. BTW: The Portugese plan does not make drugs legal. They are regulated the way we regulate prescription drugs here in the states.
6. Your straw men are showing. I suspect you don't even know what the Portugese model is, do you? I'm for regulating drugs.
7. That is seriously obnoxious. And it's beneth you.
8. Because you are attacking my argument without evidence. Without even knowing what my argument is.
9. I'm about done with your boorish behavior. Keep it up and the discussion is over. Seriously Darth, can you dial it back?

 

[RandFan]

Darth, why won't the Portuguese model work in America? You say it's because America is larger than Portugal.... so what? What does that have to do with anything? You have no explanation for why it won't work you only assert it won't work because we are bigger. Argument by assertion is fallacy.

Now, it's not like your point couldn't help advance the discussion. Your premise could be used with other premises to make a valid argument. All alone it is virtually meaningless. For all you know the Portuguese model could work better in America because we are bigger.

One last thing. I'll concede that I don't that the Portuguese plan will work here. Thing is, I've zero reason to think it won't. That America is a larger nation doesn't mean that it won't.

 

[luchog]

snippage

I had prepared a long reply, but realized that none of this is comprehensible. I cannot seem to parse half of what you've written, it all turns into gibberish when I try, and the rest is apparently full of false-equivalency and re-definition fallacies. Perhaps I'm just tired and not thinking clearly. Could you clarify your reply, because there it really isn't making much sense as it stands.

 

[luchog]

Just wanted to add that since my state is one of the first two to fully legalize cannabis, we'll see how this plays out in the US. At least prohibition advocates can't resort to worn out "cultural differences invalidate comparisons" rhetoric.

 

[marplots]

I had prepared a long reply, but realized that none of this is comprehensible. I cannot seem to parse half of what you've written, it all turns into gibberish when I try, and the rest is apparently full of false-equivalency and re-definition fallacies. Perhaps I'm just tired and not thinking clearly. Could you clarify your reply, because there it really isn't making much sense as it stands.

I was trying to make the case that "society" is a useful unit when it came to expressing rights and harms. I tried to list some rights that societies have that parallel individual rights (I think you would put this down as false equivalence) in one direction, and tried to show that "individual" was a collective term (in the other direction, likely also seen as a false equivalency). Either of those could also fall under re-definition, I suppose.

Finally, I tried to use your justification for preventive measures against drunk drivers as an example of societal harm -- and then brought in alcohol in general to boot.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Darth, why won't the Portuguese model work in America?

Because Portugal and the United states are neither the same nation culturally, nor politically. That is my major concern, with the issues of scale actually being secondary. There is a geographical difference that may or may not matter, given how global trade, licit and illicit, works.

Most likely, as in many social and political moves, because it wasn't made in America.

Might it work? Maybe.
Might something similar "work" in America?
Not sure, maybe.

What policy do you think will work, and what is it?
What I have seen from you is "legalize drugs" and "do it like Portugal" which I find unsatisfying.

Y You have no explanation for why it won't work you only assert it won't work because we are bigger. Argument by assertion is fallacy.

Which is where your argument about cutting and pasting that policy here stands, right in the middle of your own fallacious reasoning.

For all you know the Portuguese model could work better in America because we are bigger.

As above, maybe, but more likely not.

One last thing. I'll concede that I don't that the Portuguese plan will work here. Thing is, I've zero reason to think it won't. That America is a larger nation doesn't mean that it won't.

Fair enough, but whatever solution is to be had, it has to be 'made in America' or it will be politically unsaleable.
That is an unfortunate aspect of problem solving by political policy.

I have noted that in American culture and politics is that incremental change tends to be more effective. (See the Civil Rights movement as an example). I see some hope in the latest from Washington and Colorado, even though decriminalization was tried back in the 70's in a few places and eventually came a cropper. (IIRC, Alaska at one point decriminalized certain amounts of pot, but my memory is Swiss Cheese at the moment).

Note: the pile of you tossed into that other reply is sufficient signal to me of "fingers in ears not listening" that I think we are done on this for a while. What is weird is that, for all of our bickering, when it comes to decriminalizing and legalizing pot, we seem to be in accord, and always have been.

Best wishes. Smoke 'em if you got 'em.

 

[RandFan]

Just wanted to add that since my state is one of the first two to fully legalize cannabis, we'll see how this plays out in the US. At least prohibition advocates can't resort to worn out "cultural differences invalidate comparisons" rhetoric.

I'm willing to bet it won't result in higher incidences of dependance. I've seen no evidence for that. And let me be clear. I ask for evidence all of the time and all I get is that my evidence (real world examples like Portugal and Scandinavia) is invalid and... well, silence.

 

[luchog]

I'm willing to bet it won't result in higher incidences of dependance. I've seen no evidence for that. And let me be clear. I ask for evidence all of the time and all I get is that my evidence (real world examples like Portugal and Scandinavia) is invalid and... well, silence.

From my reading, admittely some time back, everywhere that has fully legalized cannabis has seen a small initial spike in use, which then stabilizes at a use level equivalent or lower than pre-prohibition.

Some have brought up the issues that the Netherlands have had since legalization, and their increasing controls on cannabis. However, what hasn't been mentioned is that this isn't due to problems with domestic use; but to counter the problems caused by drug tourists from other parts of Europe and the US.

 

[RandFan]

From my reading, admittely some time back, everywhere that has fully legalized cannabis has seen a small initial spike in use, which then stabilizes at a use level equivalent or lower than pre-prohibition.

It's kind of amazing how forcefully some people will assert that those efforts cannot work in America. And why? Because we are too big. What the hell does that have to do with anything? Who the hell knows. It's special pleading. But yeah, I've no doubt that there would be some initial blowback and I'm sure that there will always be some trade offs. But for the life of me I've yet to see anyone make a compelling positive argument in favor of the status quo.

Some have brought up the issues that the Netherlands have had since legalization, and their increasing controls on cannabis. However, what hasn't been mentioned is that this isn't due to problems with domestic use; but to counter the problems caused by drug tourists from other parts of Europe and the US.

Agreed. Social policies typically have trade offs. If America goes the Portuguese route it won't be without incident. There will of course be problems but the pay off has so much potential. It costs a fortune to incarcerate someone. Further that person can no longer contribute to society. Many people are in jail just for using drugs. What the hell good does that do for society?

 

[asydhouse]

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?

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?

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...

Judging by your ridiculous characterisation of how people get to be cannabis lovers, your opinions don't count because you have no clue what you are talking about.

You make a lot of assumptions about how people react to trying cannabis. Most of the people I know have just stopped bothering, even though it was a major part of their youth experience. Holland hs seen a reduction in the numbers of people smoking. Hard drugs have dropped right off, and the average age of addicts in Holland has been steadily rising, meaning a lack of youth recruitment into their ranks.

That's the fruit of liberalisation, a compassionate society, and education. Force and coercion are stupid counterproductive policies.

 

[cosmicaug]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/nov/30/un-drugs-policy-split-leaked-paper

 

[WildCat]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/nov/30/un-drugs-policy-split-leaked-paper

"The document will form the basis of a joint "high-level" statement on drugs to be published in the spring, setting out the UN's thinking. "

 

[luchog]

Well, we have had legal cannabis here in my home state and in Colorado for nearly a year. So far, all the doom and gloom downfall-of-civilization prophesies have completely failed to manifest. In fact, there's little actual change of any sort, except for people complaining about the government dragging their feet on the mandated licensing of private producers and sellers; and a minor increase in the crackdown on unlicensed traffickers.

 

[Barking Spyder]

OK so marijuana causes brain damage. I may be mistaken but I feel fairly certain that there are studies indicating alcohol is bad for you as well. It damages the liver and the brain. There is one big difference in that alcohol is legal. Personally, I think if people want to poison themselves that's nobody's business but their own. Why doe government think it has any right to ban this activity?

 

[Barking Spyder]

I was trying to make the case that "society" is a useful unit when it came to expressing rights and harms. I tried to list some rights that societies have that parallel individual rights (I think you would put this down as false equivalence) in one direction, and tried to show that "individual" was a collective term (in the other direction, likely also seen as a false equivalency). Either of those could also fall under re-definition, I suppose.
There really is no such thing as society. It is just X number of individuals. There are no special rights that should be given to groups just because they are groups, even if hey are really big groups.
Finally, I tried to use your justification for preventive measures against drunk drivers as an example of societal harm -- and then brought in alcohol in general to boot.

Yes, people abuse alcohol and there are drunk drivers who harm people. There are laws in place that punish people for driving while stoned, but they should not be any different because it's pot and not booze.

 

[tsig]

OK so marijuana causes brain damage. I may be mistaken but I feel fairly certain that there are studies indicating alcohol is bad for you as well. It damages the liver and the brain. There is one big difference in that alcohol is legal. Personally, I think if people want to poison themselves that's nobody's business but their own. Why doe government think it has any right to ban this activity?

Oddly enough marijuana seems to cause brain damage in those who do not use it. It drives them mad.

 

[WildCat]

I have a friend who doesn't smoke pot, but for whatever reason became a big drinker in the last 5-6 years, then a full-blown raging alcoholic. Eventually alienated all of his friends and unemployable. We always said "next time we hear about him it will be that he died". Yesterday I got that call that he had in fact died earlier this week, not sure when. I did speak to him last week though, seemed to be doing better, guess not. Drank himself to death.

I don't expect to ever get such a call about my friends who smoke pot.

 

[bigred]

I think long term use of Marjuana probably does do damage to people,but no worse then long term use of Alcohol.

Yes, and we all know 2 wrongs make a right.



PS I have mixed feelings about the stuff (and used it some as a young punk) but some of the logic used here to justify legalizing it has it's share of holes.

 

[marplots]

Yes, people abuse alcohol and there are drunk drivers who harm people. There are laws in place that punish people for driving while stoned, but they should not be any different because it's pot and not booze.

The thing is, as soon as we say that some restrictions on use are warranted (while driving, or by age limit, or anything else) we are in agreement. Where we differ is what should be penalized and how severely. In some circumstances, both alcohol and pot are illegal to possess - even in states that are now "legal."

It seems silly to then argue that making drugs illegal has no enforcement effect, while simultaneously keeping some enforcement in play. I don't mind arguing about where the dial is to be set, but it's hypocritical to think my stance is a different species than the decriminalization stance.

 

[Mycroft]

I have a friend who doesn't smoke pot, but for whatever reason became a big drinker in the last 5-6 years, then a full-blown raging alcoholic. Eventually alienated all of his friends and unemployable. We always said "next time we hear about him it will be that he died". Yesterday I got that call that he had in fact died earlier this week, not sure when. I did speak to him last week though, seemed to be doing better, guess not. Drank himself to death.

I don't expect to ever get such a call about my friends who smoke pot.

My condolences on the loss of your friend.