The Marijuana Thread

[brodski]

I dont know, like slingblade pointed out, thats a really good question. And as slingblade said, may not be caused by even a drug!

I was just pointing out the hillarity that was suggested junkies didnt smoke pot before heroin or meth or crack or whatnot

Well, yes, that's true the majority of "hard" drug users smoke dope first, and I don't think that anyone is denying that. But the "gateway drug" claim is a lot more than that.
Claming that something is a "gateway drug" implies that "hard" drug usage is actually caused to some degree by "gateway drug" usage that by restricting the availability of "gateway" drugs you'd have fewer people using "hard" drugs.
That is the claim which people are demanding evidence for.

 

[pipelineaudio]

Well, yes, that's true the majority of "hard" drug users smoke dope first, and I don't think that anyone is denying that. But the "gateway drug" claim is a lot more than that.
Claming that something is a "gateway drug" implies that "hard" drug usage is actually caused to some degree by "gateway drug" usage that by restricting the availability of "gateway" drugs you'd have fewer people using "hard" drugs.
That is the claim which people are demanding evidence for.

If youd read the rest of the thread, I stood down and agreed with slingblade that pot use could just be a symptom and not the gateway itself

 

[slingblade]

I dont know, like slingblade pointed out, thats a really good question. And as slingblade said, may not be caused by even a drug!

I was just pointing out the hillarity that was suggested junkies didnt smoke pot before heroin or meth or crack or whatnot

Not all did. How many, I dunno.

Also consider that pot's easy to get. Easier than heroin in many places. almost any high school or college kid can tell you where and how much, and will probably offer to go get it for you if you'll get him stoned.

But just because many or even most heroin users smoked pot before they learned to shoot up doesn't mean it was the pot smoking that led to or gave tacit permission to move to something harder.

If I grant you that many/most junkies began with pot, would you grant me that not all pot smokers end up using heroin?

I mean, Carlin had it right, as do the other posters arguing against the causation/correlation fallacy:

All wine drinkers started out drinking milk (of some kind).

But not all who start out drinking milk end up wine drinkers.

Therefore, drinking milk doesn't lead to drinking wine.

Smoking pot doesn't lead to shooting up.

 

[pgwenthold]

This is a little skewed though

I know a LOT of people that drink

a few of them mess up their lives to some degree with the alcohol

I know many people who use coke

ALL of them rule 8 their own lives and quickly everyone close to them

Of course, you are less likely to know that the ones who don't mess up their lives are using coke in the first place.

Second, how much of the problem with coke is caused by prohibition? Legal cocaine would be cheaper and of known quality. Why do drug addicts turn to crime? Because of the drug? Or because of the cost of the drug, and the fact that it is illegal makes it so that criminals are the ones controlling it.

Of course, this is just coke. Going back to marijuana, and it isn't even close.

 

[pgwenthold]

A couple of points:

First, I see a clear distinction between alcohol and marijuana. Alcohol is frequently used for purposes other than getting drunk. Marijuana, whether used medically or recreationally, is only used for the "high" effect, or the effect that it has on the body. And I don't think that I am going out on a limb to say that the majority of marijuana is used recreationally, for the high alone.

So what?

I can give you plenty of examples of activities that serve absolutely no good purpose, other than "I want to do it," that, if they have any tangible effect, are potentially harmful, but are perfectly legal.

For example, it is not illegal for me to stack bricks up in my driveway and balance on them on one foot. Why would I do that, you ask? Because I want to. I have no other reason for doing it, just that I consider it recreation.

Moreover, it is a dangerous activity. Depending on how high the stack of bricks is, I run a huge risk of falling and hurting myself (especially considering my balance!).

So, it is a risky activity that serves absolutely no purpose, other to satisfy my recreational desires, and it is perfectly legal.

So why the special pleading over marijuana?

 

[brodski]

So you still say there is some evidence, just less than the general public believes?

There is some evidence for lost of things which turn out not to be true.
There is some evidence fro psychics, for luminiferous aether, for inelegant design and honest politicians. The question is, is there any good evidence?

 

[Ziggurat]

First, cannabis, like most other drugs, is metabolized by the liver regardless of the ingestion method.

Sure, but that misses my point: when it's absorbed through digestion, it has to pass through the liver first, before it will reach the nervous system, and that attenuates its effectiveness considerably. There are three methods for getting drugs to the nervous system without passing through the liver first: injection, inhalation, and suppository. Injection and suppository have obvious disadvantages. But inhalation can be accomplished without smoking.

Second, the big difference between smoked and eaten cannabis is the speed of onset of effects. Eaten cannabis can take anywhere between 20 and 40 minutes before effects are felt. The onsent of effects for smoked or nebulized cannabis is typically less than a minute.

And an inhaler would provide the same rapid onset advantages.

Third, having a pre-set dosage makes it difficult to titrate dosage by actual effects, rather than by trial and error.

Again, easy to accomplish with an inhaler. Make dosages of each puff of inhaler similar to what you'd get from a single drag of a joint, if you want. But now you KNOW what the dosage is. Yes, with smoked pot you can administer correct dosages easily enough, but you missed the point that you cannot TRACK that dosage, which deprives you of a diagnostic tool.

 

[hgc]

So what?

I can give you plenty of examples of activities that serve absolutely no good purpose, other than "I want to do it," that, if they have any tangible effect, are potentially harmful, but are perfectly legal.

For example, it is not illegal for me to stack bricks up in my driveway and balance on them on one foot. Why would I do that, you ask? Because I want to. I have no other reason for doing it, just that I consider it recreation.

Moreover, it is a dangerous activity. Depending on how high the stack of bricks is, I run a huge risk of falling and hurting myself (especially considering my balance!).

So, it is a risky activity that serves absolutely no purpose, other to satisfy my recreational desires, and it is perfectly legal.

So why the special pleading over marijuana?

Try doing it stoned, Brick Rogers of the 21st Century.

 

[brodski]

If youd read the rest of the thread, I stood down and agreed with slingblade that pot use could just be a symptom and not the gateway itself

Yes you did agree with Slingblade, but your answer to Clarsct a couple of posts later made it look like you had changed your mind back again.

 

[Thanz]

So what?

I can give you plenty of examples of activities that serve absolutely no good purpose, other than "I want to do it," that, if they have any tangible effect, are potentially harmful, but are perfectly legal.

For example, it is not illegal for me to stack bricks up in my driveway and balance on them on one foot. Why would I do that, you ask? Because I want to. I have no other reason for doing it, just that I consider it recreation.

Moreover, it is a dangerous activity. Depending on how high the stack of bricks is, I run a huge risk of falling and hurting myself (especially considering my balance!).

So, it is a risky activity that serves absolutely no purpose, other to satisfy my recreational desires, and it is perfectly legal.

So why the special pleading over marijuana?

Brick stacking, huh? Of all of the "plenty of examples" you can think of, you come up with brick stacking. You're probably a Mason out to control me. Well, I'm not falling for it, pal.

On a more serious note, I was merely pointing out that the analogy to alcohol is not apt. The activities are not equivalent. If you can think of plenty of examples of dangerous activities that have no good purpose, use those. Because alcohol use and pot use are not equivalent.

 

[Random]

Marijuana is addictive? Since when?

I applaud myself for kicking the addiction cold turkey when I was in college, and turn my unbridled scorn on ye who are too weak to overcome your base pleasures.

Actually, that was supposed to be response to a post about cocaine. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[Random]

No, if pot use was "usually the first symptom of being a junkie" then the majority of people who smoked pot would be junkies. Now given that studies in my nation have estimated that well over ¼ of the population has smoked pot, we would expect around 15 million heroin addicts here, rather that the (roughly) 40,000 we have.

You may be able to make a case that "the first symptom be being a junkie is often pot use" (which is a different claim to the one you posted) but remember, correlation does not equal causation, an you would still have to show that an increase in the number of pot smokers would lead to an increase in the number of heroin users- especially if pot where legal and heroin remained illegal.

Well, it should be easy enough to research this. Take a survey of people who used marijuana in the past and compare them to people who did not. See if one group has a higher chance of moving on to “harder” drugs. If there is a link it should be relatively easy to find. At least one study has to have been done on this.

 

[Snide]

When the Netherlands decriminalized cannabis, there was a net reduction in usage rates, preceded by a short, temporary spike.

I find this very interesting if true. Perhaps the increase from people like myself, who would ony do it were it legal and infrequently, would be more than offset by the "potheads" who only got into it because it was something rebellious, and are thus no longer really rebelling.

Just a WAG on my part. I'll try Googling it, but do you have any links?

 

[Snide]

show me a significant number of junkies who didnt smoke pot first

Well, there you have it I guess. Best argument I've read all....minute.

 

[Greatest I am]

Governments need a source of cash for black ops. They presently control most major suppliers of all drugs.
They are not likely to end this fund without great pressure. Only an organized and well funded organization can -take them on- and hope to win.

Regards
DL

 

[brodski]

Governments need a source of cash for black ops. They presently control most major suppliers of all drugs.
They are not likely to end this fund without great pressure. Only an organized and well funded organization can -take them on- and hope to win.

Regards
DL

Can I ask: do you smoke cannabis? Your reply may provide a useful data point in trying to tie paranoia to cannabis use.

 

[Thanz]

Well, it should be easy enough to research this. Take a survey of people who used marijuana in the past and compare them to people who did not. See if one group has a higher chance of moving on to “harder” drugs. If there is a link it should be relatively easy to find. At least one study has to have been done on this.

Well, here is some info for you.

According to here, in 2005 there were about 19.7 million illicit drug users over the age of 12. A rate of about 8.1% of that population. Marijuana users were by far the biggest group at 74.2% of drug users. That group is broken down further so that marijuana only users are 54.5% of drug users and marijuana plus other illicit drugs is 19.6% of drug users. Users of other illicit drugs only make up 25.8% of drug users.

A number of conclusions can be drawn. First, a majority of marijuana users do not use other illicit drugs. However, a much greater percentage of marijuana users also use other illicit drugs compared to the general population. About 3.7% of the total group use illicit drugs other than marijuana (including those who use both). 26% of marijuana users also use other illicit drugs.

What does this all mean? If you show me someone that uses marijuana, it is more likely than not that he does not use other illicit drugs. But, it is far more likely that he does use other illicit drugs when compared to someone who does not use marijuana.

Don't you just love statistics?

 

[Random]

Well, here is some info for you.

According to here, in 2005 there were about 19.7 million illicit drug users over the age of 12. A rate of about 8.1% of that population. Marijuana users were by far the biggest group at 74.2% of drug users. That group is broken down further so that marijuana only users are 54.5% of drug users and marijuana plus other illicit drugs is 19.6% of drug users. Users of other illicit drugs only make up 25.8% of drug users.

A number of conclusions can be drawn. First, a majority of marijuana users do not use other illicit drugs. However, a much greater percentage of marijuana users also use other illicit drugs compared to the general population. About 3.7% of the total group use illicit drugs other than marijuana (including those who use both). 26% of marijuana users also use other illicit drugs.

What does this all mean? If you show me someone that uses marijuana, it is more likely than not that he does not use other illicit drugs. But, it is far more likely that he does use other illicit drugs when compared to someone who does not use marijuana.

Don't you just love statistics?

Interesting. Well, it appears that marijuana users have a higher chance of taking “harder” drugs. But it is not definite and also leads to questions of access, peer-pressure, and whatnot. If marijuana were legal, would these numbers stay the same? If you could go to a bar and get your marijuana cigs, as opposed to having to go to a street dealer, would you be less likely to go to harder drugs due to a relative lack of access?

 

[Dancing David]

OK. I'll bite, with a middle-brow response: Yes. We have alcohol abuse. So why do we need one more problem?

So alcohol causes chirocciss of the liver and death, is very addictive and a major health hazrd. Why should mj be illegal, bacause african americans used to be the ones to smoke it.

What problems will marijuans cause that alcohol, gambling and driving over the speed limit don't cause.

Computers cause problems too, as does new technology, should we outlaw them becasue they might cause more problems.

marijuana was criminalized because of racial persecution, thems the facts. I say we outlaw the bible instead.

 

[pipelineaudio]

If I grant you that many/most junkies began with pot, would you grant me that not all pot smokers end up using heroin?

Yeah I never made that claim

All I ever said is that all junkies, except maybe some insignificant number of them, smoked pot before they smoked whatever else.

Thats all I said, yet because it is politically incorrect to ever say ANYTHING bad about magical mystical pot, everyone's all freaking out