Let's talk about drugs.

Post Reply New Topic

@Dox 47

I sympathize with your libertarian views on the matter. However I have some issues with what you are saying.

On the matter of you first question. People who are on drugs are 6 times more likely to commit homicide than those who are looking to buy them. 24% of attacks on law enforcement officers are committed by those under the influence of drugs. In 1995 alone almost as many people died from drug related causes than there were combat losses in Vietnam.

As to the costs of enforcement. Only 3% of all government spending on drug related issues went directly to law enforcement. 58% went to treatment and the rest to prevention. So anyone who thinks that prohibition is too expensive is misled. (once again the statistics are from the same source).

As to the justifications for the legality of tobacco and alcohol, the idea that these social evils, being distinct from those that are illegal is where the argument for legalization reaches the absurd. Yes tobacco and alcohol are dangerous but the idea that this justifies legalization of other dangerous things is just silly.

@91:
I live in Humboldt county, one of the pot capitols of the world, and while I sure as hell don't want people stoned and driving, I have never seen someone in my ER who got stoned and then tried to kill himself, or who got stoned and then robbed a convenience store and shot the clerk, or who got stoned and then stole their parent's car and drove it into a redwood. I have seen all of these things with alcohol.

I don't like pot; I think it stinks, I think it messes up people's lungs, and I don't particularly like hanging around stoners. They tend to be boring people, particularly if they started using before they got out of puberty. What they are not, however, is violent.
Violence is brought in by drug gangs who make literally millions growing and selling an illegal crop.

Plus, we need the taxes.

THC turns into metabolites (which means it's no longer active) and gets stored in your fat cells after it leaves your neurotransmitters, so how the hell is it supposed to impair your memory when it's no longer psychoactive?

If he wanted to say your memory is impaired and everything else in intact after intoxication, then he should have used something different than "chronic low grade intoxication". He obviously meant that you remain high after 1-4 hours and this is what causes memory impairment. Look, arguing seblantics is pointless because intoxication isn't supposed to mean anything else other than "Being under the influence".

Memory impairment occurs during intoxication which is while THC is active, so the only way your memory would be impaired after that is brain damage which has also been proven to be BS. So how are the effects of cannabis supposed to persist well past the absence of the casual chemicals? Brain damage? The metabolites magically turn active again and make its way back to the neurotransmitters?

This article is a complete joke. I've read it thoroughly and taken it into context, and it's utter BS.

@ Aceofspades

"Not surprisingly, marijuana intoxication can cause distorted perceptions, impaired coordination, difficulty with thinking and problemsolving, and problems with learning and memory. Research has shown that, in chronic users, marijuana's adverse impact on learning and memory can last for days or weeks after the acute effects of the drug wear off. As a result, someone who smokes marijuana every day may be functioning at a suboptimal intellectual level all of the time."

http://www.nida.nih.gov/infofacts/marijuana.html#anchor

You are still operating under the unfounded assumption that criminalization decreases use.

What a joke, the NIDA is a federal institution and funds more than 85% of the world's research in drugs. It is obviously politically motivated even though it denies it.

Is there any biochemical explanation for the quote? The brain damage theory is proven to be BS, and that's the only way marijuana can impair you without the THC being active in your neurotransmitters. There is no biochemical explanation on the site for that claim, so I call BS.


http://www.pharmatopia.nl/mirrors/erowi ... arch5.html

They funded the Ricaurte-McCann Ecstasy study, which has been retracted as well as em being called out by a brain scan expert for overstating the certainty of their data. Yeah, real neutral of em

@ Orwell: I'm surprised he still buys this crap. I've utterly destroyed his last source, then his rebuttal was about the semantics of "chronic low grade intoxication". Then I've not only made claims, but backed em up with a biochemical explanation. Then he responds with a website by an organization which is a federal institution that has been called out on its BS. Matter of fact, the source he posted before NIDA was more credible than this crap. Honestly, I think he needs to check the assumptions behind his statements cuz that's where the real problem lies rather than the logic on the surface.

@Aceofspaces

One can only speculate as to the reasons behind the memory loss. The memory loss however has been documented by multiple studies (referenced here, ://books.google.com.au/books?id=kLBwj7i6CMwC&pg=PA155&lpg=PA155&dq=pope+gruber+cannabis&source=bl&ots=LMt3L6UIly&sig=BgoUVofkq6gANNFMhX3yLpEiJkQ&hl=en&ei=NXQ8TZ-mM4yougOjtI2KCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=pope%20gruber%20cannabis&f=false)*

Now as to the explanation you are seeking. One need not prove underlying cause to establish effect (we do not need to know where gravity comes from to know it exists) Invoking an argument of infinite regress only adds logical fallacy to your situation.

* My apologies for the length of the link.

Infinite regress arguments are not logical fallacies. We've been through this before. The regress argument is perfectly logically valid, it is just rejected because of the negative outcome it has on human knowledge claims. A distinction has to be made on these issues by anybody who claims to understand logic well enough to use it.

Alcohol prohibition in the US speaks to this one too; prior to prohibition drinking was almost an exclusively male pursuit, but once it became illegal a whole new drinking culture arose that included both men and women of diverse age and social class. People who'd never have considered taking a legal drink were eager to take an illegal one, now that it was the cool and rebellious thing to do.

No not really. The evidence tends to support criminalization. For example Sweden and Finland which have some of the strongest laws have a lower incidince of use than states that have decriminalized. Also, as I mentioned previously decriminalization of possession of cannibis in Alaska led to a three fold increase in use. Since the relaxing of laws in Holland heroin use is up three fold and cannabis use has doubled. Also if one wants another US example, the original criminalization of heroin and cocaine (1914), combined with aggressive control measures, led to a reduction in the number of addicts from around 1 in 200 to less than 40,000.

No not all are, this one however is. Unless you think that one needs to understand effect in order to attribute cause in a medical study?

Well, no, you are still mistaken. A logical fallacy is a failing in regards to logic. An absurdity is an absurdity, and can be arrived at using all of the logic correctly, showing that the real problem lies in the premises used. One can have an absurdity without a logical fallacy. (Note: "Absurdity" is not a technical term here, but rather a vague reference to the idea of the "reductio ad absurdum")

Attribution is the name of the game. We don't need to know where gravity comes from to know it exists, but its existence doesn't justify attributing it to a supernatural cause.

Anyways, what is a infinite regress? Sounds like something involving digging deeper and deeper without having an idea of the chronological order or where it all begins or w/e.

btw it says I've reached a page that is unavailable. Can you quote it?

@AG: Exactly, one could logically argue the world is flat when the problem lies in the premise. It's best to check both the logic and the premise.

91, I'm not going to lie, I think your belief that marijuana users are somehow less productive is frankly insulting. I have worked with alcoholics and marijuana users and guess who f****d up more and who were completely unreliable?
Additionally, you mention that most people in jail for drugs are for trafficking. You don't seem to realize that above a certain amount you get that charge arbitrarily. Many people are rotting in prison for no good reason at all

Being less unreliable than an alcoholic is hardly an accomplishment. Weed is fun, but it's demotivational effects and effects on memory formation have been well documented. Daily marijuana use WILL make you less productive, and suggesting otherwise is extremely irresponsible.

Who here is suggesting daily marijuana use?