New Study documents the brain damage caused by marijuana

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I ate ten grams of hash once. Once.

 

[ravdin]

The jury is still out on marijuana, but evidence is mounting that it is not as harmless as many people think. Of course potheads will be inclined to dismiss such evidence, as it invalidates their lifestyle. In this respect they are similar to global warming deniers.

That's a strawman. I don't see anyone here making a claim that smoking pot is harmless.

Do you enjoy anything at all that's bad for your health- smoking tobacco, drinking, fatty foods, or sugar? What if we told you that these pleasures are now forbidden to you on pain of a prison sentence, for your own good and everyone else's?

 

[marplots]

A lot of people are addicted to alcohol. Alcohol addiction has one nasty effect that no other drug has: withdrawal can kill you (quitting other drugs cold turkey can be extremely unpleasant but no other drug is known to be potentially lethal when you DT).

I'm not sure why alcohol is the standard, other than tradition. If we do take it seriously as a standard, how are we going to compare other drugs, since the effects can be quite different? In my view, it is better to evaluate each entity on it's own merits and defects, rather than shoot for a broad-brush, make them all legal, policy.

I think that we have an obligation to help people who abuse alcohol, but most of us would agree that it makes no sense at all to prohibit it for everyone. We would not be "helping" alcoholics by throwing them in jail.

True enough, especially when they make their own alcohol in jail. However, it is still possible to have a dial where we regulate more or less. I am not sure, but I think you can still serve time for bootlegging. I do know there are penalties for selling to minors, drinking while driving and selling without a license or after hours.

If the mechanism is going to be to regulate, then it has to be done in a substance by substance manner. But notice the difference between legal use and legal manufacture/marketing. We already separate out possession/use charges (which are less severe) from wholesale style transactions. Can I assume that serious penalties would remain for large scale, black market dealers?

To your other point, we should absolutely abandon failed policies. I don't know what you think the "point" is of the War On Drugs, but it is a failure in just about every measure- there is more supply, and more demand, and more money in this black market economy than there ever was.

The original point of the war (going back to Nixon and ended by Obama -- at least the term "War on Drugs") was to interdict the supply of drugs to the using community. You might look at Quaaludes as one of the few examples of where it actually worked very well.

Still, I am open to suggestions. What legal/enforcement landscape would be acceptable? To decry the current situation as "failed" doesn't take into account how the situation would be without it. Are we trying to replace one unacceptable outcome with another, just as unacceptable?

What solution to the problem is on offer? Does it address the societal harm from addiction and substance abuse? What should the goals be and how might we achieve them?

There are so many topics and points of view, it's very difficult even to start a meaningful conversation.

 

[ravdin]

I'm not sure why alcohol is the standard, other than tradition. If we do take it seriously as a standard, how are we going to compare other drugs, since the effects can be quite different? In my view, it is better to evaluate each entity on it's own merits and defects, rather than shoot for a broad-brush, make them all legal, policy.

I picked alcohol as an example because it's potentially one of the most harmful recreational drugs I know of. It's toxic and addictive. No one denies its direct correlation to domestic violence and traffic fatalities. Hundreds of people die every year from overdosing (citation here). Yet most of us are able to enjoy it in moderation. I can honestly see no reason that marijuana should be outright banned when we can find ways to live with alcohol abuse.

True enough, especially when they make their own alcohol in jail. However, it is still possible to have a dial where we regulate more or less. I am not sure, but I think you can still serve time for bootlegging. I do know there are penalties for selling to minors, drinking while driving and selling without a license or after hours.

Homebrewing was deregulated in the 1970s (thanks, Jimmy Carter!) and so far as I know, the world has not ended yet.

If the mechanism is going to be to regulate, then it has to be done in a substance by substance manner. But notice the difference between legal use and legal manufacture/marketing. We already separate out possession/use charges (which are less severe) from wholesale style transactions. Can I assume that serious penalties would remain for large scale, black market dealers?

In practice, we're not so good at making the distinction. You can be charged with intent to sell for a minuscule amount of illicit drugs.

I don't see any large scale alcohol bootleggers still in business, do you? It's so much easier to make money in that industry by setting up a legal business.

The original point of the war (going back to Nixon and ended by Obama -- at least the term "War on Drugs") was to interdict the supply of drugs to the using community. You might look at Quaaludes as one of the few examples of where it actually worked very well.

Two things you said here are ridiculous. First, Obama did not end the War On Drugs- I assure you that it's alive and well. Secondly, Quaaludes are still being manufactured and are popular around the world. Demand may be low in the US but it's a post hoc fallacy to assume this is because of government policy.

Still, I am open to suggestions. What legal/enforcement landscape would be acceptable? To decry the current situation as "failed" doesn't take into account how the situation would be without it. Are we trying to replace one unacceptable outcome with another, just as unacceptable?

What solution to the problem is on offer? Does it address the societal harm from addiction and substance abuse? What should the goals be and how might we achieve them?

There are so many topics and points of view, it's very difficult even to start a meaningful conversation.

This is a tough one to answer if we're being honest. I'd start however with the immediate decriminalization of marijuana use at the federal level. I'd support federal interdiction at the borders, but if people can easily buy (or grow) their own, subject to state regulations, then prices should plummet and so should incentives to smuggle it in from outside the country.

Yes, there may be abuse but we allow people to shorten their lives by giving themselves heart disease or diabetes from an unhealthy diet. While we don't want to look the other way when this happens, it's clear that a heavy handed approach would not fix this problem.

 

[marplots]

I picked alcohol as an example because it's potentially one of the most harmful recreational drugs I know of. It's toxic and addictive. No one denies its direct correlation to domestic violence and traffic fatalities. Hundreds of people die every year from overdosing (citation here). Yet most of us are able to enjoy it in moderation. I can honestly see no reason that marijuana should be outright banned when we can find ways to live with alcohol abuse.

I think you've outlined a common framing when comparing marijuana to alcohol. I think it has a flaw though. On the one hand, the harms of alcohol are admitted, and then the position is to add more harm from something else. It's as if you are saying bed bugs are a nuisance, but we can deal with them, so why not add fleas as well? Should you be prohibited from use because use is harmful to others? Is there a way to demonstrate mature, responsible people from those who shouldn't use? Age is the usual discriminator, but propensity to addiction isn't directly related to age.

Would I be willing to give up something I enjoy if I knew doing so would prevent someone else from abusing it?

If alcohol were an absolutely new drug, just introduced a few years ago, I expect it would be illegal. The fact that one substance is so ingrained in society you can't get rid of it isn't a justification we can use for other drugs. (Nor is it a good reason to prohibit.)

Homebrewing was deregulated in the 1970s (thanks, Jimmy Carter!) and so far as I know, the world has not ended yet.

I don't know about the world ending, but just to balance things out, here is a list of countries where alcohol is banned and the world hasn't ended yet:
Afghanistan, Brunei, parts of India (Manipur, Mizoram and Nagaland,as well as the union territory of Lakshadweep), Kuwait, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Yemen, Pakistan. I'm not particularly fond of how those countries are run, but you can prohibit alcohol if you want in cultures where alcohol is not seen as a traditional right.

In practice, we're not so good at making the distinction. You can be charged with intent to sell for a minuscule amount of illicit drugs.

Are we talking about flaws in the law or the application? Would lessening penalties for personal use satisfy the over-incarceration problem?

I don't see any large scale alcohol bootleggers still in business, do you? It's so much easier to make money in that industry by setting up a legal business.

I wouldn't say it's easy, but I take your point. I do know a bit about legalization for medical use and a price drop to about $250 an ounce in Michigan. This is still a far cry from what you might expect from a "real" industry, but I doubt marijuana will ever be as cheap as tobacco -- the processing is labor intensive. Home growers I am familiar with do not make much money -- largely because of price drops and the inability under our medical marijuana laws to sell weed outright.

Still, alcohol manufacture and marijuana growing are very different animals. Alcohol scales up nicely in a manner familiar to the chemical industry. Marijuana is largely home or small farmer territory. Are there industrial operations for marijuana where it is legal? Have the prices fallen to an unattractive level in California or Europe where it can be had under regulation?

Consumption patterns are also different. I don't know the right stats, but if a half dozen plants can provide a three month's supply, where does the volume come in? I can't see manufacturers competing well with home growers, unless there are regulations in place to enforce it.

Two things you said here are ridiculous. First, Obama did not end the War On Drugs- I assure you that it's alive and well.

Here's where the term was dropped: http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2009219734_webkerlikowske14m.html

Since the phrase doesn't distinguish a particular law or policy, I'll stay away from trying to argue against it. Obama did increase enforcement in some ways, although he's making pre-election promises to reevaluate things (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_...t-obama-would-tackle-drug-war-in-second-term/)

Secondly, Quaaludes are still being manufactured and are popular around the world. Demand may be low in the US but it's a post hoc fallacy to assume this is because of government policy.

You may know more about this than I do. It has been cited by the DEA as a success: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/meth/faqs/quaaludes.html

At one time, the sleeping pill Quaalude was as big a problem in the United States as heroin and cocaine. But then, in a matter of just a few years, it disappeared. If the successful strategy the DEA pursued in cracking down on Quaaludes had been followed when meth surfaced a few years later, experts say it is unlikely the meth epidemic would ever have happened.

This is a tough one to answer if we're being honest. I'd start however with the immediate decriminalization of marijuana use at the federal level. I'd support federal interdiction at the borders, but if people can easily buy (or grow) their own, subject to state regulations, then prices should plummet and so should incentives to smuggle it in from outside the country.

Hard to say, but I largely agree. Marijuana may be a special case because of the volume needed to make a profit (as opposed, say, to meth). It actually may be more akin to illegal fireworks manufacture, which is a federal offense and largely home "grown". The demand is smallish (which I would also predict for weed) and products are typically moved in small lots at high profit margins through trusted networks.

Yes, there may be abuse but we allow people to shorten their lives by giving themselves heart disease or diabetes from an unhealthy diet. While we don't want to look the other way when this happens, it's clear that a heavy handed approach would not fix this problem.

I think the addiction element makes illegal drugs rather unique. I cannot see a good comparison to other behavioral diseases in the damage caused (although, as always, this varies by drug). The bottom line for me isn't whether the state has a vested interest, but where on the scale that interest lies. Most would say crack ought to be illegal because of it's immediate consequences -- maybe so for the nastier of the bath salts as well. Where we set the line is not an obvious question. Is it appropriate to ban tobacco smoking in public? Would advocates accept a licensing element to use drugs? There are many, many possibilities between strictly illegal, harsh enforcement and Laissez faire.

What I react adversely to is the way some legalization advocates (not you) seem simplistic and naive -- it reminds me of Libertarian arguments for the "invisible hand of the free market" as a deus ex machina.

(Full disclosure: I edit a paper dedicated to marijuana reform and advancing the marijuana cultivation industry.)

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Has anyone in this conversation ever been addicted?
That's where the rubber meets the road and freedom has left the building. You are asking me to support slavery because you want me to believe people choose to become slaves.

If addiction is a disease, and it can be mitigated by restricting access to drugs, doesn't society have an obligation to restrict that access? If the objective is to lessen the societal costs of the war on drugs, that's fine, change the way you fight. But to abandon everything because it isn't working as is seems to miss the point of making them illegal in the first place.

Marijuana is not physically addictive. It may be habit forming but the only thing one gets with withdrawals after heavy daily use is a bit of appetite suppression.

I believe nicotine withdrawal has much worse physical symptoms.

 

[3point14]

I had to isolate this:

(and even if it was I cannot allow myself to let you harm yourself because of your retarded choices).

What I actually want to say to this would produce a string of asterisks.


What I will say is that people choose pleasure over safety in many ways to many different degrees.

Cross the road to kiss your girlfriend? Risk.
Jump out of an airplane with a parachute? Risk
Dive a racecar? Risk.

Why are you isolating drug related 'retarded choices' from every other form of retarded choice? You don't eat sweets? Any food beyond that which is demonstrated to have no adverse health effects at all? You do nothing that has risk attached? Ever? Or you only take risk for real, practical purposes and never simply for the sake of pleasure?

Who gets to decide what's "retarded" in this brave, and intensely boring, new world of yours, because I bloody well hope it's not you.


Ultimately, I just wanted to tell you that the statement I highlighted is wrong. You both can and must allow me to make my own choices, retarded or not, and I will do you the same courtesy.

 

[3point14]

Nah, I vote we start with heroine.

Seriously I'd be all for coming together with the evidence but more importantly an understanding of the evidence to deciding a policy. It's not enough to say heroine is bad just because I said so. It'd be great if we all had an understanding of the effects of opiates of physiology with the heart and with the brain (heart being what kills you, brain being the addiction) because I feel with that we could all agree on not doing it without throwing it to the government to decide that. That's the issue I take, it's that we are so ready to throw something to the government to deal with when it's the public who sucks sooooooo goddamned hard at just evaluating things for themselves. We don't even understand alcohol; we're still surprised by crap about it but it's totally legal dude and we'll use that reasoning to justify legality for all kinds of other drugs ignoring the piles of corpses and I think we aren't really informed and that we don't have enough desire to be informed.

So I don't know all the problems down the road, I doubt anyone really knows. That doesn't mean it's a free-for-all until we find out too; that's stupid.

Oh also heroine friggin' kills you.

So does salt. What's your point?

 

[Lowpro]

I had to isolate this:




What I actually want to say to this would produce a string of asterisks.


What I will say is that people choose pleasure over safety in many ways to many different degrees.

Cross the road to kiss your girlfriend? Risk.
Jump out of an airplane with a parachute? Risk
Dive a racecar? Risk.

Why are you isolating drug related 'retarded choices' from every other form of retarded choice? You don't eat sweets? Any food beyond that which is demonstrated to have no adverse health effects at all? You do nothing that has risk attached? Ever? Or you only take risk for real, practical purposes and never simply for the sake of pleasure?

Who gets to decide what's "retarded" in this brave, and intensely boring, new world of yours, because I bloody well hope it's not you.


Ultimately, I just wanted to tell you that the statement I highlighted is wrong. You both can and must allow me to make my own choices, retarded or not, and I will do you the same courtesy.

Look you haven't been reading my posts or my responses to others. I'm isolating drugs as a retarded choice because many are actually bad for you and it's incredibly hard to question that and the recreational use is usually a worse option than a clinical use which is what people try to do to defend drug use -.-

Cross the road to kill your girlfriend is a risk. We also assess the risk, we keep ourselves safe by checking both sides of the road, and it's not just the guy crossing the road but we trust the girl to keep safe too. She isn't expected to sit there and not say anything about the danger's of a semi coming bearing down the road too, that'd be negligent wouldn't we all agree. We regulate ourselves, but we're failing to do that in the case of drugs and I cannot even see why, I figured it's because we're extremely stupid and value the platitude of freedom at the cost of being rational.

Jumping out of a plane with a parachute...well at least you had the parachute. Dude again point for me, we manage the risk by (A) certifying chute folding, if not by you by another certified member and even then some policies such as our local skydive has a certified trainer always there watching you fold your chute even if you're certified. You are always observed and regulated from the time you get on the plane to the time you touch down and even after that. The responsibility is shared. We regulate ourselves on that, I just say we extend that same regulation to our health too. The fact we let it get all the way up to a government decision is proof that we've failed to actually take care of ourselves and others. YOU WILL BE TOLD YOU CANNOT JUMP if you're not being safe, and you'll be told by others not yourself. I guess that's what you don't want, right? How dare they infringe on your freedom -.-

Driving a race car is the same thing. We don't let an amateur get behind the wheels of a race car at all, they need training and discipline and they're observed by coaches and other trained professionals all of whom share responsibility for that risk. AGAIN that's a point for me and proof that you aren't using that noggin' of yours.

The statement I highlighted is correct in a society that values its health and probably values not being a prick too. You'd be a psychopath not to intervene on some level against people who are hurting themselves.

 

[Lowpro]

So does salt. What's your point?

We regulate salt. We regulate it for ourselves, we regulate it for others who eat our food. Yes salt can kill you, so we pay attention to it and attenuate it best we can. I'm not saying we ban salt, but if a guy with CVD wants to munch on a salt lick well I daresay we should all be there and say "you're an idiot and that's a bad idea." Maybe we'll hire a nurse on stand by, however tertiary care is not as effective or progressive as primary care, that is not letting the stupid event happen in the first place.

 

[3point14]

Look you haven't been reading my posts or my responses to others. I'm isolating drugs as a retarded choice because many are actually bad for you and it's incredibly hard to question that and the recreational use is usually a worse option than a clinical use which is what people try to do to defend drug use -.-

Cross the road to kill your girlfriend is a risk. We also assess the risk, we keep ourselves safe by checking both sides of the road, and it's not just the guy crossing the road but we trust the girl to keep safe too. She isn't expected to sit there and not say anything about the danger's of a semi coming bearing down the road too, that'd be negligent wouldn't we all agree. We regulate ourselves, but we're failing to do that in the case of drugs and I cannot even see why, I figured it's because we're extremely stupid and value the platitude of freedom at the cost of being rational.

Jumping out of a plane with a parachute...well at least you had the parachute. Dude again point for me, we manage the risk by (A) certifying chute folding, if not by you by another certified member and even then some policies such as our local skydive has a certified trainer always there watching you fold your chute even if you're certified. You are always observed and regulated from the time you get on the plane to the time you touch down and even after that. The responsibility is shared. We regulate ourselves on that, I just say we extend that same regulation to our health too. The fact we let it get all the way up to a government decision is proof that we've failed to actually take care of ourselves and others. YOU WILL BE TOLD YOU CANNOT JUMP if you're not being safe, and you'll be told by others not yourself. I guess that's what you don't want, right? How dare they infringe on your freedom -.-

Driving a race car is the same thing. We don't let an amateur get behind the wheels of a race car at all, they need training and discipline and they're observed by coaches and other trained professionals all of whom share responsibility for that risk. AGAIN that's a point for me and proof that you aren't using that noggin' of yours.

The statement I highlighted is correct in a society that values its health and probably values not being a prick too.

You've just described the mitigation of risk. Well done. The risk still exists.

Have you seen a bloke called Alex Honnold? Look him up. He's a solo free climber. He climbs very high things with no harness or ropes. Would you ban him doing what he does?

People currently and historically, take risks for pleasure. Lots of risks. Youtube is full of them. Look at these guys. Enormous risk, just for the thrill of it.

It's human nature to take risks. Risks for tangible reward, risks for intangible reward, risks simply for the sake of taking them, like the loonies in that video. You want a risk free life? Lock yourself in a padded cell and hope it doesn't have any detrimental psychological effects.

Just because you want to live a risk free life (which is actually impossible) don't try to force that ethic on anyone else. And just because some risks can be mitigated, that's no argument for only taking risks that can be reduced. You want to reduce the risk of skydiving to zero? Don't get in the plane in the first place.


I think you've put your conclusion a very long way before the actual logic bit of the process, and I really don't think you know very much about the subject, so I'm done with you.

You have a nice day.

 

[Lowpro]

Yea I'm sure the age-old debate about whether it's right to let someone stick a fork in an electrical socket even if you can stop them will never be resolved even though it seems obvious.

It's not avoiding a risk free life, it's actually mitigating harm through primary, secondary and tertiary levels which is something we already value and have codified. I should have a say in your risk especially if I'm participant in it. 3point14 I'm actually glad to see you chicken out and instead resort back just general physical risks like base jumping and speeding, something we all agree is dangerous and get our jollies off with the schadenfreude. I just think that's psychopathic to say anything other than "the hell are you doing?!" Thanks for demonstrating that.

You haven't even argued my points at all, so I extend them. We should all have a say and should be motivated to mitigate risk on a primary, secondary, and tertiary level and to say we shouldn't is insane. Again thanks for allowing me to extend my argument. Glad you're done with me, I doubt you could do anything better.

 

[WildCat]

26 people shot here last night, 2 fatally.

Yay war on drugs!

But the prohibitionists think it's all worthwhile, so long as it keeps one kid from smoking a joint. After all, there's a sliver of evidence that it might cause brain damage!

 

[marplots]

Marijuana is not physically addictive. It may be habit forming but the only thing one gets with withdrawals after heavy daily use is a bit of appetite suppression.

I believe nicotine withdrawal has much worse physical symptoms.

Are you using "physically addictive" to cover "addicted" or something else? I think the habit forming element is the primary harm, not withdrawal symptoms. It seems to be the feature that links a craving for other drugs with things like gambling. I would recognize that physical addiction is a factor, but would argue that addiction is more about behavior in response to stress (including physical, emotional and cravings) than simply about avoiding withdrawal only.

From the Mayo Clinic:

Drug addiction symptoms or behaviors include:

Feeling that you have to use the drug regularly — this can be daily or even several times a day
Failing in your attempts to stop using the drug
Making certain that you maintain a supply of the drug
Spending money on the drug, even though you can't afford it
Doing things to obtain the drug that you normally wouldn't do, such as stealing
Feeling that you need the drug to deal with your problems
Driving or doing other risky activities when you're under the influence of the drug
Focusing more and more time and energy on getting and using the drug

If addiction doesn't fit marijuana, perhaps dependence would? Certainly, marijuana addiction does show up in the treatment field, so at least some professionals are treating it as such.

I may have posted this before: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120926213930.htm

They found that in more dependent users, certain withdrawal symptoms, such as physical tension, sleep problems, anxiety, depression, mood swings and loss of appetite, were more strongly associated with relapse than other symptoms, such as hot flashes, fatigue, or night sweats. Participants with greater dependence before the abstinence attempt reported more severe impairment from the withdrawal.

I can't compare withdrawal from nicotine with marijuana, but would say that both "can" be addictive.

We might distinguish an addictive personality as the item of merit, rather than linking the word addiction to a particular substance. I think that has some benefits because it recognizes that some people can experiment with drugs (even very powerful drugs) and never pick up the habit. It also seems more useful because it focuses on the patient instead of the substance.

 

[marplots]

26 people shot here last night, 2 fatally.

Yay war on drugs!

But the prohibitionists think it's all worthwhile, so long as it keeps one kid from smoking a joint. After all, there's a sliver of evidence that it might cause brain damage!

Seriously? A ton of gang violence, some domestic disputes, a pile of unknown shootings and it gets laid at the foot of the war on drugs? You hardly need to spin a deadly night in Chicago when there are much better examples of drug dealer violence or police on citizen violence to use.

This try seemed sloppy.

But maybe I'm just too dumb to make the connection. How did that article support stopping the war on drugs?

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

We regulate salt. We regulate it for ourselves, we regulate it for others who eat our food. Yes salt can kill you, so we pay attention to it and attenuate it best we can. I'm not saying we ban salt, but if a guy with CVD wants to munch on a salt lick well I daresay we should all be there and say "you're an idiot and that's a bad idea." Maybe we'll hire a nurse on stand by, however tertiary care is not as effective or progressive as primary care, that is not letting the stupid event happen in the first place.

My sister and I shared a salt lick once. How would anyone know we were doing that stupid event, and how would they stop us?

 

[WildCat]

Seriously? A ton of gang violence, some domestic disputes, a pile of unknown shootings and it gets laid at the foot of the war on drugs? You hardly need to spin a deadly night in Chicago when there are much better examples of drug dealer violence or police on citizen violence to use.

This try seemed sloppy.

But maybe I'm just too dumb to make the connection. How did that article support stopping the war on drugs?

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.

 

[Lowpro]

My sister and I shared a salt lick once. How would anyone know we were doing that stupid event, and how would they stop us?

-________-

I guess I should have spelled out for you that I was referring to a person with CVD. I'll try a more obvious case... What, are you so cavalier to not check up on a diabetic making sure they're taking their insulin. If they aren't it's not your business right, even if they're out driving or somewhere where they may not be able to take it. I mean, what fiends we are to not care about it because live free!

Look why are you guys on a discussion board if you aren't even reading and digesting the material being addressed and instead opt to make off-the-cuff remarks with uninformed quips? At least try to use your heads if you're going to be witty.

 

[marplots]

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.

Thanks for the explanation. If I understand it right, the flow is:
1) Drug war increases cost of drugs
2) Gangs get money from selling drugs because it's lucrative
3) Gangs kill (or just shoot) people with guns they bought with drug money.

Which makes the answer come out:
5) Make drugs legal and gangs won't have any money to buy guns and shooting people will go down.

Is that pretty much the argument in soundbites?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Nah, I vote we start with heroine.
...
Oh also heroine friggin' kills you.

Pedantic eeek! Heroine is a female hero. Heroin is the drug. I don't think there's a British spelling of heroin with an 'e' but someone can correct me if I'm wrong.