The Marijuana Thread

[Dancing David]

I used pot to quit smoking tobacco. It satisfied the smoking urge and got me high, sort of a reward.

Not being physically addictive (but certainly can be habit forming) pot is easier to quit. No withdrawals unlike tobacco, which is why a pot smoker can go through a day without smoking while tobacco users start jonesing about every three hours. Of the people I know who smoke pot about half smoke tobacco as well. I do know some who will allow pot smoking in their house but you have to go outside for tobacco.

So much for anecdotes I guess.

Nothing personal but many people keep bringing up the physical addiction thing. Physical addiction is not a real phrase there are signs of withdrawl that are observable from most substances and there are physical ones in that list. So when people say "it is not physical addictive" it usualy means that there are np physical symptoms from withdrawl.

However addiction is a set of behaviors, it is not dependant upon the physical withdrawl symptoms, it is a set of behaviors that can apply to non-substance issues as w3ell.

Also there is a good reason you don't have to detox from MJ, it has a half life of three days.

This post is not addressed specificaly to you jimintott, just to the idea.

 

[BPSCG]

You're right the slippery slope slopes both ways, as it where. But do you take the position that something should be illegal until there is reason to make it legal?

No. Frankly, I'm not persuaded that either side of the argument is right; nor am I persuaded that either side is wrong. I find myself more and more asking, what are the social costs to legaliziation, vs. the social costs of keeping it illegal? And what are the social benefits of keeping it illegal vs. the social benefits of legalization? I don't think the scales are tipped heavily in either direction.

The biggest benefit to legalization that I can see is that we wouldn't be spending taxpayer money busting pot smokers, with all the attendant costs of the criminal justice system. How much is that? I don't know; I'm sure there are figures out there somewhere.

The biggest benefit to keeping it illegal that I can see is that we don't put society's stamp of approval on it, and we have fewer stoners than we would otherwise have, and more productive taxpayers. In an increasingly competetive economic world, does it benefit us to have more stoners? How much is the value of that? I don't know, and I don't believe it's knowable.

 

[BPSCG]

Wow. How incredibly short sighted! I hope that your construction company charged the client for the time and effort required to replace the whole crew. Was the client really that interested in not seeing the work progress?

I suspect that the client was more interested in not having impaired people doing construction for him and getting killed in the process.

And more interested in not having impaired people doing faulty construction for him and getting someone else killed when the building collapsed.

The client did the right thing. As Clarence Thomas once said, "Knowing the right thing to do isn't usually very hard; it's actually doing it that's hard."

 

[Dancing David]

Well, we certainly have a lot more alcoholics and I think that the economic impact of alocohol use on lost work time is much higher, but most studies don't break it down by category, they just say 'lost time, wages and production due to substance abuse'. But I do believe that alcohol is found to be the largest single category of derug dependance in other studies, so by extension I would say it might be likely that alcohol contirbutes to the greatest econmoin impact.

On the slipp[ery slop, there are sunstances which would have a high social cost for legalization, cocaine and methamphetamine for example. Oxycontin is already the perscription drug of choice that gateways to heroin. And it is legal.

LSD would probably not be wise to legalize but most people won't do it more than once.

I also believe that we would need more research to demonstrate that the legalization of marijuana would increase the amount of use. In the 1970s a large percentage of people used mj but very few went on to regular use. I thinkl young people use it to be defiant as well, and it is eqasier to conceal that alcohol.

 

[Trantor]

Prescription pain killer drugs are illegal, too. What are you talking about?
I can't legally abuse valium.

I don't understand you. Presciption drugs are absolutely legal - with a presciption. Do you think it's hard to get one? As far as valium is concerned, I know people that get it legally and abuse it legally - with a presciption! There are also people who get a presciption and sell some or all it at a profit. There is a presciption drug market out there. It's not just marijuana and cocaine, meth, ect.

 

[jimlintott]

Gets back to my earlier point. Is the fact that one substance that impairs your thinking, judgement, and motor skills is legal sufficient justification to make another substance that impairs your thinking, judgement, and motor skills legal?

Is it sufficient justification to make any and all substances that impair your thinking, judgement, and motor skills legal?

I have a problem with this line of reasoning and that is choice. We have accepted that people want to get high and as a society we allow and tolerate it or else alcohol would be illegal. But many people cannot, due to medical reasons, consume alcohol. Does this mean that their personal choice to get high requires they must break the law, as the only legal high is not an option for them? Then there is the situation with people who simply prefer a pot high to an alcohol high because it is not as physically and mentally impairing. (My own personal experience with illegal and legal recreational drugs indicates that being very drunk is on an impairment level with LSD. A pot high isn't even in the same ballpark as being quite drunk.)

The biggest reason to legalise is that having these drugs illegal accomplishes nothing. All it does is leave law enforcement to deal with what is a medical problem. It is not just inneffective it is counter productive.

 

[Trantor]

Wow. How incredibly short sighted! I hope that your construction company charged the client for the time and effort required to replace the whole crew. Was the client really that interested in not seeing the work progress?

This happened back in the mid 90's. Insurance companies and others were trying to make a deal about a perceived decline in productivity and safety due to illegal drugs. The client wanted to impress his superiors with a no tolerance on drugs program on their jobsites. It was very shortsighted. We didn't charge them for the time and effort to replace the workers, but we did charge for the tests. Not to mention that the project went behind schedule.

 

[Trantor]

Let me say that this whole illegal drugs thing is tricky. It's hard to know what's right and what's wrong. In the context of testing, I feel that marijuana is unfairly targeted, when compared to other stronger drugs. I feel that marijuana should be legal if alcohol is legal. I could live with both being illegal, as I do very little drinking and don't smoke marijuana. Construction workers in general smoke marijuana and certainly do their share of drinking. As long as they don't use the stuff on the job, and use it in moderation at home, I personally don't have a problem with alcohol or marijuana being legal. The problem with all drugs is the part about "moderation" and personal responsibility.

 

[mmiller]

I suspect that the client was more interested in not having impaired people doing construction for him and getting killed in the process.

Then the workers should have been tested for being impaired. Urinalysis doesn't test for impairedness (the type of test most likely used.) Have the workers walk a line or something similar...

 

[steverino]

I don't understand you. Presciption drugs are absolutely legal - with a presciption. Do you think it's hard to get one? As far as valium is concerned, I know people that get it legally and abuse it legally - with a presciption! There are also people who get a presciption and sell some or all it at a profit. There is a presciption drug market out there. It's not just marijuana and cocaine, meth, ect.

I do not care if it is "hard to get one" or not. You NEED the prescription to take the Valium or whatever legally. Your dose is regulated. Also, you have to define "hard." I have been perscribed Clonazepam for anxiety. My perscription was extremely closely monitored. I had to get a psychiatrist's approval, involving a $150 visit. I had to visit him once every 3 months to get a renewed prescription, and he gave me enough pills for 1/2 milligram every 2 days. (I'd take "as needed.")
If we dissect your logic, you are stating that certain legal drugs are taken illegally, and not that certain illegal drugs should be taken legally. You are proving my case that people abuse. We don't need more of it out there.

 

[slingblade]

That wasn't quite where I was going. I was suggesting that with more stoners, we'd have fewer people able to do work that requires good education, reasoning abilities, etc.

Beeps, remember the people I spoke about, whom I met in college? The ones who are daily smokers, and yet seem perfectly intelligent (Dean's List, President's List)?

Two of them are now teaching.

Are you going to prove, somehow, that marijuana users cannot get good educations, have poor reasoning abilities, and so on?

I don't count the fact that they choose to smoke, pot or tobacco, as proof of lousy reasoning skills across the board--people make mistakes, and even smart people can make a poor choice now and then. YOU make a mistake now and then, but it's not proof to me that you're totally and consistently incompetent.

But looking on the bright side, we'd have a lot more people who could work at McDonald's!

I applied there last week. Still waiting for them to call.

 

[steverino]

Beeps, remember the people I spoke about, whom I met in college? The ones who are daily smokers, and yet seem perfectly intelligent (Dean's List, President's List)?

Two of them are now teaching.

Winston Churchill was an alcoholic. Some are able to manage it, others not.

 

[Trantor]

I do not care if it is "hard to get one" or not. You NEED the prescription to take the Valium or whatever legally. It is regulated. Also, you have to define "hard." And if we disect your logic, you are stating that certain legal drugs are taken illegally, and not that certain illegal drugs should be taken legally.

You want some pain killers? Go to your doctor, complain about some chronic back problems that you have been feeling - you got your prescription. It's not difficult to find a doctor that will help you get your pain killers, zanex, or other drugs that are abused by some people. Anti-depressants are also abused by many people. Do these drugs offer some real benefits? Yes. Can they be abused? Yes. Is there a black market for them? Absolutely.

I've seen some very screwed up people that were hooked on nothing but presciption drugs. Problem is, that if they have a presciption, it's ok for them to have that drug. A drug test is meaningless. Only when their work suffers enough and it is properly documented, can action against them be taken.

 

[steverino]

You want some pain killers? Go to your doctor, complain about some chronic back problems that you have been feeling - you got your prescription. It's not difficult to find a doctor that will help you get your pain killers, zanex, or other drugs that are abused by some people. Anti-depressants are also abused by many people. Do these drugs offer some real benefits? Yes. Can they be abused? Yes. Is there a black market for them? Absolutely.

I've seen some very screwed up people that were hooked on nothing but presciption drugs. Problem is, that if they have a presciption, it's ok for them to have that drug. A drug test is meaningless. Only when their work suffers enough and it is properly documented, can action against them be taken.

I will meet you half way. Trying to stick to the thread, if (non-medical) marijuana becomes legal, people will abuse it like they currently do prescription drugs. Therefore it should be legal/illegal.

 

[Dancing David]

I do not care if it is "hard to get one" or not. You NEED the prescription to take the Valium or whatever legally. Your dose is regulated. Also, you have to define "hard." I have been perscribed Clonazepam for anxiety. My perscription was extremely closely monitored. I had to get a psychiatrist's approval, involving a $150 visit. I had to visit him once every 3 months to get a renewed prescription, and he gave me enough pills for 1/2 milligram every 2 days. (I'd take "as needed.")
If we dissect your logic, you are stating that certain legal drugs are taken illegally, and not that certain illegal drugs should be taken legally. You are proving my case that people abuse. We don't need more of it out there.

But the sceptics logic still applies , how many more people would abuse canabis if it was legal, what proportion?Given the number of drunk driving fatalities and liver problems, and other alocohol related problems , why is alcohol legal then.

marijuana was made illegal as a way of persecuting african americans. It is not a narcotic but it was classified as one in 1928.

 

[Dancing David]

Anti-depressants are also abused by many people. .

that is a new one to me, which ones? the tricyclics, I know that prisopners sometimes abuse Seorquel( an antipsychotic), but seriously I have never heard of abusing ADs. The side effects or effects are usualy unpleasant even for people with depression.

 

[steverino]

marijuana was made illegal as a way of persecuting african americans.

Really? I hadn't heard that. I guess it is possible. We all saw the movie Refer Madness. I think its point was that pot was infiltrating the white Leave-It-To-Beaver kids who were starting to turn on. But I do associate weed and heroin with the old jazz scene which was dominated, I think, by blacks and Jews.

 

[Trantor]

I will meet you half way. Trying to stick to the thread, if (non-medical) marijuana becomes legal, people will abuse it like they currently do prescription drugs. Therefore it should be legal/illegal.

steverino, It never ceases to amaze, just how weak some people can be. They let drugs control their lives; They become a slave to a substance. I see no problem with a person smoking a joint a couple of times a week at home, or a person drinking a glass of wine with their meals, but when a person needs to smoke pot all time or needs drink after drink in order to function; then it becomes abuse. If people used personal responsibilty and moderation; there would be no need for all these drug laws and a lot of time and money would be saved, not to mention - lives.

 

[Trantor]

that is a new one to me, which ones? the tricyclics, I know that prisopners sometimes abuse Seorquel( an antipsychotic), but seriously I have never heard of abusing ADs. The side effects or effects are usualy unpleasant even for people with depression.

David, antidepressants such as zoloft can be additive. They do help many people if taken properly. The problem comes when a person starts taking ever larger doses in order to feel better. Soon that person is hooked and can't function without that high dose. The body adapts and soon an even higher dose is needed.

Xanax is also abused. Used properly, it can help with anxiety, in higher doses, it can become additive and can get you real high. I remember talking with an ex-employee that had been in a drug treatment program and xanax was the drug that he was hooked on. When he told me that he used to pop 5 or 6 pills at a time, I was truly amazed. Very sad case.

Anyway, I got some work to do. Thanks for the great discussion.

 

[jimlintott]

Nothing personal but many people keep bringing up the physical addiction thing. Physical addiction is not a real phrase there are signs of withdrawl that are observable from most substances and there are physical ones in that list. So when people say "it is not physical addictive" it usualy means that there are np physical symptoms from withdrawl.

However addiction is a set of behaviors, it is not dependant upon the physical withdrawl symptoms, it is a set of behaviors that can apply to non-substance issues as w3ell.

Also there is a good reason you don't have to detox from MJ, it has a half life of three days.

This post is not addressed specificaly to you jimintott, just to the idea.

I missed this and think it is spot on. I'm no expert on addiction but this makes perfect sense to me.

Is it far off base to think that in the case of tobacco users (or other drugs with physical withdrawal sypmtoms) that the withdrawal symptom partly triggers the behaviour?