Let's talk about drugs.
22 Jan 2011, 11:48 pm
About the Murray study. 91 is right that he is basically the only voice for blaming cannabis for causing schizophrenia. There are more studies.
http://www.mendeley.com/research/causal ... -evidence/
Even Murray seems to think that the problem lies with Cannabis use by very young people. But what I have seen with alcohol in young people is similar. There is a drinking age and I think that with Cannabis legalization, adulthood would also be necessary anyway.
The solution is education. Making things illegal is not going to stop people from using them.
_________________
.
22 Jan 2011, 11:58 pm
@ Vex: Yeah the problem with these studies is that there's so many variables when it comes to marijuana due to it's illegality.
@ Orwell: How the hell was that supposed to be a straw man? Tobacco is sold in convenience stores, alcohol is sold in convenience stores in the states, where else would hard drugs be sold without prescriptions? And addicts seeking help for their problems has more to do with less social stigma than the laws.
@ Vigilans: Oh ok, I get what he means now. But just because the marijuana culture doesn't really have a place for "weed tasting", it doesn't mean weed inherently has no place for that. Vaporized sativas taste awesome, so it's a matter of having a culture for that.
@ 91: Oh alright, I'll check him out tomorrow and give a response. I've been stuck at home all day cuz of the sh***y weather and road conditions, and I think this is the most time I've ever spent on WP lol.
23 Jan 2011, 12:11 am
^^^^^
Sorry vex I think you might be underplaying the risk a bit. I find this to be a pretty common tactic used by those who favor legaization.
Here is a good article by Dr. Murray on the subject:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen ... 900001.ece
He mentions other effects, such as memory loss et al and contrasts it to the not very useful comparison made between cannibis and smoking. There is little doubt that what smokers of cannabis do is unhealthy, I cannot really see why someone would want to use it, but that is just my opinion. I however am a road user, a tax payer, a coworker and a family member. So when users drive they endanger me, when they go to hospital it costs me money, when your work performance degrades it undermines my trust in you and you risk all this not just to yourself but to everyone I know. So basically, your price is just too high.
_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.
Last edited by 91 on 23 Jan 2011, 12:14 am, edited 2 times in total.
23 Jan 2011, 12:12 am
The Swiss model of heroin legalization has the drug administered in a controlled environment under the supervision of a physician, in a dedicated facility. I believe all drugs should be legal; I do not believe they should all be extremely easily attainable.
The laws are a significant enough factor that major improvements are seen by changing the laws.
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
23 Jan 2011, 12:18 am
I actually now think all indicates there is a risk that schizophrenia will increase by 8% once cannabis use among minors goes widespread, thanks to Murray.
But the risks don't matter. It does not matter how dangerous a drug is, at the end of the day, if it is illegal, and people are uneducated, people will still consume it. Except that the money will go to drug dealers, and conversely by guerilla groups in Latin America and corrupt governments all over the world (ie: Venezuela and Afghanistan).
Making some drugs illegal clearly did not stop consumption. It just increased the violence and in wide proportions. Mexico is nowadays doomed all thanks for the money that would not be available if drugs ere legal.
And, alcohol is still pretty damn bad and terrible. It causes suicides. It causes espouse abuse in people that would otherwise not do it. IT causes accidents. And death by overdose is a pretty clear risk. Even with the risks in Cannabis, it does not make sense to classify Cannabis as a strong drug while calling Alcohol and Tobacco "soft".
I am reading your link and it seems that Murray is downplaying the effects of alcohol. I have now learned my lesson and downplaying the effects of Cannabis is dangerous, so I won't do that again, but I think that downplaying the effects of alcohol is equally wrong:
Alcohol is out of the system in 24 hours, but , like cannabis, alcohol abuse has permanent effects. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... of_alcohol . ie: Just like Cannabis affects the hypo-campus, alcohol damages the central nervous system.
And...
http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/aa63/aa63.htm
Up to 80 percent of alcoholics, however, have a deficiency in thiamine (15), and some of these people will go on to develop serious brain disorders such as Wernicke–Korsakoff syndrome (WKS) (16). WKS is a disease that consists of two separate syndromes, a short–lived and severe condition called Wernicke’s encephalopathy and a long–lasting and debilitating condition known as Korsakoff’s psychosis.
The symptoms of Wernicke’s encephalopathy include mental confusion, paralysis of the nerves that move the eyes (i.e., oculomotor disturbances), and difficulty with muscle coordination. For example, patients with Wernicke’s encephalopathy may be too confused to find their way out of a room or may not even be able to walk. Many Wernicke’s encephalopathy patients, however, do not exhibit all three of these signs and symptoms, and clinicians working with alcoholics must be aware that this disorder may be present even if the patient shows only one or two of them. In fact, studies performed after death indicate that many cases of thiamine deficiency–related encephalopathy may not be diagnosed in life because not all the “classic” signs and symptoms were present or recognized.
Human Brain
Approximately 80 to 90 percent of alcoholics with Wernicke’s encephalopathy also develop Korsakoff’s psychosis, a chronic and debilitating syndrome characterized by persistent learning and memory problems. Patients with Korsakoff’s psychosis are forgetful and quickly frustrated and have difficulty with walking and coordination (17). Although these patients have problems remembering old information (i.e., retrograde amnesia), it is their difficulty in “laying down” new information (i.e., anterograde amnesia) that is the most striking. For example, these patients can discuss in detail an event in their lives, but an hour later might not remember ever having the conversation.
Oh, and , as a parallel for Cannabis: http://alcoholism.about.com/od/teens/a/blacer050216.htm
Another thing:
And Murray seems to agree that legality (or not) does not seem to have an effect on actual consumption.
If (i)legality does not stop(increase) consumption then what does it do? Legality of drugs seems to just make them harder to regulate and control, and drug dealers end becoming the ones deciding the HTC percentages and getting all the profit. The money that goes to drug dealers increases crime , and it also increases violence and war in some countries like Colombia or Mexico...
_________________
.
23 Jan 2011, 12:50 am
Sorry, I just cannot suport decriminalization for a number of reasons.
1. Drug use and crime have been linked regardless of the illegal natural of the act. People who are on drugs commit crimes beyond just that of the act of purchase.
* addendum, drug use in the United States has gone down by one third since the 1970s. Cocaine use has dropped by around 70% (statistics available here http://www.justice.gov/dea/demand/speak ... -may03.pdf)
2. Wherever decriminalization has been tried, it has led to an increase I the use of drugs. For example when Alaska tried it with cannabis in the 1970s, use tripled. Heroin addiction in Holland has tripled since use was decriminalized.
3. Saying that alcohol and tobacco are comparable or worse social evils therefor we should allow for more is a terrible argument.
4. The cost of enforcing drug prohibition is not at high as the costs associated with treatment. Decriminalization leads to more addicts so the cost saving argument is irrelevant.
5. Decriminalized zones create hotspots of legal safety for criminals to act against that choose prohibition. Loom at how human trafficking and drug distribution have centralized themselves in the low countries.
_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.
Last edited by 91 on 23 Jan 2011, 1:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
23 Jan 2011, 12:59 am
since you can not stop drug usage, you should treat it as health issue rather than a criminal one. The criminality that comes with prohibition is way worse than the actual health effects of drug usage. If people can't act in their own self-interest then there isn't much you can do for them. If someone wants to kill themselves slowly by using drugs and alcohol, it should be their right. Drug laws are merely something that make people feel like we're doing something even if it hurts more than it helps. Our government seems to specialize doing that. It's unconstitutional, leave people the hell alone and stop kidnapping them from their friends and families. I don't think there is any evidence to suggest that drug usage would rise if they didn't have a gun pointed at their head by the government. How does putting a non-violent offender that hasn't hurt anyone but themselves help these folks once they get out of prison? Most people that don't use drugs probably don't want to. Legalizing drugs wouldn't make drug usage mainstream, it would make the suffering of drug usage mainstream. Maybe these poor souls wouldn't be cast aside as the scum of society and they could get the support from their friends and family to value their lives.
Last edited by Jacoby on 23 Jan 2011, 1:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
23 Jan 2011, 12:59 am
1. Drug use and crime have been linked regardless of the illegal natural of the act. People who are on drugs commit crimes beyond just that of the act of purchase.
Evidence, please?
False. Switzerland saw a dramatic decline in heroin addiction when it was decriminalized, and several nations have seen drops in marijuana use after legalization.
Completely false on both counts.
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
23 Jan 2011, 1:03 am
^^^^
Dur to multitasking issues on the platform I am using. I had to paste in the link for the statistics after the fact. They are now available in my original post.
Also if you think Switzerland is a great model for drug laws check out the 'needle park'. I think you will find all of my points are backed up by evidence in the source I provided.
_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.
Last edited by 91 on 23 Jan 2011, 1:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
23 Jan 2011, 1:05 am
Sorry vex I think you might be underplaying the risk a bit. I find this to be a pretty common tactic used by those who favor legaization.
Here is a good article by Dr. Murray on the subject:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen ... 900001.ece
He mentions other effects, such as memory loss et al and contrasts it to the not very useful comparison made between cannibis and smoking. There is little doubt that what smokers of cannabis do is unhealthy, I cannot really see why someone would want to use it, but that is just my opinion. I however am a road user, a tax payer, a coworker and a family member. So when users drive they endanger me, when they go to hospital it costs me money, when your work performance degrades it undermines my trust in you and you risk all this not just to yourself but to everyone I know. So basically, your price is just too high.
This article is a complete joke. That was too easy...
@ Orwell: You know what? Legalization of hard drugs is starting to look like a more rational approach, but I'm still in the process of doing more research to be completely sold on the idea.
Last edited by AceOfSpades on 23 Jan 2011, 1:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
23 Jan 2011, 1:12 am
^^^^
It's a popular article. I am sure if you read the good doctor's work on the subject you will find the evidence you are complaining is absent. Complaining that a popular article does not cover everything is just stating the obvious.
_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.
23 Jan 2011, 1:25 am
It's not that the article doesn't cover everything, it's that it's fundamentally BS. It tries to blame academic performance on how long THC takes to flush out of your system, but the fact that THC gets stored in your fat cells rather than lingering in your neurotransmitters after 1-4 hours completely renders "chronic low grade intoxication" BS. The reason alcohol flushes out of your system so fast is the same reason hangovers are so horrible; your body detects it as a poison and tries to get rid of it as fast as possible. The potency thing is such a typical anti-drug scare tactic it's laughable that it's even in an article written by a professor when you'd expect to hear something like that in a high school class.
The fact that it attributed the percentage of usage to the laws is also a bunch of crap since the strength of marijuana culture is usually the determining factor. Maybe this article should've gotten the obvious correct then I wouldn't have problems with it.
23 Jan 2011, 1:38 am
@Aceofspades
Dr. Murray is indicating that the effects of cannabis persist well past the absence of the causal chemicals, specifically he cites that memory function continues to be impaired (hence low grade intoxication). I think if you look through the article again you will find that he is not making the link you are saying he is.
_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.
23 Jan 2011, 3:47 am
You know who's really a drain on and menace to society at large? Non-violent drug users who were sent to prison and are now effectively unemployable and psychologically damaged by years of confinement in a brutal Darwinian environment where violence is a casual affair, who don't have many legitimate options upon release and are now much more likely to commit real crimes against their fellow citizens than if they'd just been left alone. Yep, if I felt the the need to mind other people's business, it would be those people I'd want to keep a close eye on; victims of the "justice" system. Just leaving them be would be far too efficient and logical to work, plus more importantly, there's no money in it.
_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.
- Rick Sanchez
23 Jan 2011, 3:59 am
@Dox47
97% of people sent to prison on drug related charges were convicted of selling or intent to sell. These people are not just users. A study in the state of Michigan out of 47,000 inmates only 15 were incarcerated on first time possession charges. The numbers in a similar study in Wisconsin were even lower. The justice system is the single largest source of referrals to drug treatment programs. It also seems reasonable that society place legal incentives for people to avoid drugs, the combination of court and treatment produces a much higher chance of success than volunteer entries. This information is available on pages 23 & 24 of the document I posted on the previous page.
_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.
23 Jan 2011, 4:41 am
But would people killing each other over corners to sell a product that was readily available in stores? The American experience with alcohol prohibition tells the tale fairly decisively; a previously legal and popular product was banned, and a massive black market and the associated crimes sprang up virtually overnight, where as post repeal alcohol is sold perfectly peacefully. You don't really see bar owners shooting it out over turf, or rival tobacco executives bumping each other off for that matter either.
Also, the distinction that alcohol is enjoyed for non-intoxicating purposes is particularly disingenuous as a justification for it's legality and the prohibition of other intoxicants. Given time and a legal marketplace, I'm sure other drugs would diversify and improve themselves in search of greater market share, after all I doubt many people like the taste of meth and I can already see the market for organic, locally grown pot. Fair trade cocaine, anyone?
Personally, I don't particularly care if people get high and make a mess of their own lives, I don't even care that they may occasionally do so at a cost to society. What I do care about is that the cost to society of prohibiting drugs is much higher than the cost of occasionally cleaning up after addicts. Small scale property crime looks pretty good compared to the troubles brought on by organized crime funded by the massive profits created through prohibition and the violence it will use to support and protect itself (see Mexico). That's not even getting into the right to privacy and whether the government even should be able to regulate personal recreational drug use or the terrific human cost of drug prohibition, just a cold hard financial decision.
_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.
- Rick Sanchez
