Posted on 03/07/2015 1:12:44 PM PST by Ken H
Some studies have indicated that the brain damage occurs with sporadic (once per week) use, and that the effects are durable, with impairments in initiative and ambition being still present two years after last use.
That last link is most certainly a medical study, and uses the language of researchers worldwide. In ALL studies, the data is always presented as fact, and the interpretation of the data is presented with terms of uncertainty to indicate the fact that other interpretations of data are possible, or that further study might reveal factors not considered in the present study. Study authors make the best interpretation possible with the data, but it is impossible to get ALL of the facts and consider EVERY alternative in the course of a single study. Unfortunately, that particular study is behind a paywall--what I linked is only an abstract, meaning that it is a very short summary of the full study. In the full study, the authors probably develop several alternative explanations for the data before settling on the one they consider most likely, that was included in the abstract.
There are other anti-cannabis studies that have been used that had no data and still others proven to be a pact of lies.
Where do you get that information? From NORML? NORML has a vested interest in misrepresenting studies; I wouldn't put much credibility in any of its claims.
If anything, I have seen some pro-legalization authors manage to publish articles in the medical literature that downplay the long-term effects of marijuana use. But when I come across an article like that, that stands out because its conclusions are so different from the majority of articles, I look at author affiliation--if the authors work at some pro-drug liberalization organization (like NORML), then their conclusions are highly suspect. Often, the pro-drug liberalization articles in the medical literature are not studies at all, but opinion pieces, where any included data was cherry-picked from real studies.
The medical studies of the medical uses of cannabis which is completely non-toxic are in the thousands. The Israeli’s are years ahead of the rest of the world in the use of medical cannabis and the success of the treatments in their health care system are utterly amazing. Educate yourself!
I *do* educate myself, by reading the medical literature (which is all I do, every day). I have yet to see ANY studies that establish medical benefits of marijuana use. It isn't for lack of looking; the studies just aren't there. Which tells me that there are NOT studies that actually support "medical marijuana" use (not that they aren't being done, but that they do not have results that verify medical uses of marijuana). If there are, in fact, chemicals in marijuana that could have therapeutic use, then they need to be extracted from the marijuana and tested separately, in a controlled manner--just like any other drug of natural origin (which make up a large part of our pharmaceutical inventory).
Some peoples brains are not fully developed till age 25 that is not a figure that can be used universally for brain development.
Actually, humans do not mature at vastly different rates. There is probably some variation around that number, but the age of 25 has been pretty well established as when the brain finally stops developing. Other body systems mature at different rates--a friend told me that the immune system continues to develop until around age 18, for example.
Here is why I bring up alcohol.
Once again, you keep bringing up orange sherbet when I am trying to talk about apples. The characteristics of marijuana use and its effects on the developing brain must be talked about within that context--the mechanisms of alcohol's effects on the body are completely irrelevant to that discussion. I think that alcohol is a favorite diversion of pro-marijuana use activists--every time the harmful effects of marijuana come up, they just yell "But alcohol!!!!" as if that is at all informative about the deleterious effects of marijuana. It isn't. If there is another thread about the effects of alcohol, and I have something to say about it, I will do so in THAT thread.
From what I recall of studies that I read a LONG time ago, is that use of marijuana causes future children to lack ambition and initiative. The studies did not address why--they probably couldn't, since the tools for doing in-depth genetic analyses weren't available 2 or 3 decades ago.
As I recall, the effect was not from marijuana use during pregnancy, but marijuana use preceding pregnancy (even by years). That suggests to me that the DNA in the egg cells was chemically altered in such a way as to change gene expression, which, in turn, affects fetal development.
In the current literature, there are a number of studies that detail the harm of marijuana use during pregnancy. It apparently damages the brain and immune system of the fetus; it also apparently causes an increase in a certain kind of childhood cancer. These effects are all mediated through altered gene expression (caused by chemical alteration of the DNA, which does not change the DNA sequence, but affects how genes are expressed).
Cigarette smoking during pregnancy harms the fetus by restricting the flow of oxygenated blood through the placenta. Limited alcohol use during pregnancy doesn't seem to do much, but heavy use affects fetal development, probably through cytotoxic effects of the alcohol on highly sensitive rapidly growing cells.
I actually have not said much about legalization or criminalization; there are arguments to support leaving it to the states, and to support making it a federal matter. And since I am not a legal junkie (and, in fact, detest the legal system and the way it complicates everything), I will not express any opinion on that topic.
What I am doing here is pointing out that any decision to decriminalize marijuana needs to be made on a better basis than arbitrary decisions made in the absence of good data. A lot of misinformation is used to convince people that decriminalization isn't bad. However, historically, drug use was legal in the US up through the 1800s. I do not think the decision to criminalize drug use was made arbitrarily--I think it must have been prompted by the observation that drug abusers become very damaged and, as a result, become a burden on the rest of society because no one seems willing to just let drug addicts crawl off and die. Our society insists on giving them basic survival supplies.
That article actually tells me very little about what has happened in Portugal. It appears to be an opinion piece, giving only a very limited number of facts in support of a specific opinion.
Portugal did not legalize drugs; it changed how drug addicts are processed in the legal system.
I question how the number of 100,000 addicts was derived, and I question the number of 40,000 being treated. If we accept the premise of the article, that this represents a decrease of 60,000, then what happened to that 60,000? Did they all OD?
But since I don't accept the premise of the article, I have to ask other questions. How effective is the treatment--where are the studies of immediate efficacy, and long-term recovery? If treatment is so successful, then why are there still 40,000 in treatment ten years after deciding to shunt drug abusers into treatment programs rather than the criminal justice system? If that 40,000 is an annual number, then 400,000 total have been treated, when the original number was only 100,000 addicts. That means either that drug abuse has increased 4 fold since Portugal started its experiment with decriminalization, or that those original 100,000 addicts are repeat customers at the treatment centers (either way, the treatment option isn't working).
Remember Whitney Houston? Fantastic singer. Drug abuser. Went through rehab at least once. Died of an overdose.
Withdrawal symptoms do not need to occur in order for an addiction to exist. In addiction, the parts of the brain responsible for impulse control become dysfunctional, so that addicts are unable to decide against using a substance--if it is available, they will use it. People become addicted to gambling, too, and I'm pretty certain that gambling does not involve physically ingesting psychoactive chemicals.
What substances adults put in their own bodies is their business not mine, not yours, not the govts.
There is just one problem with that. You would be correct, if we, as a society, allowed addicts to crawl off and die when they have progressed so far in their addictions that they are no longer able to function as productive members of society. But that isn't the case. As a society, we insist on taking care of them, on providing them minimal survival necessities. As a result, we spend a lot on welfare programs, on dealing with the homeless, and so forth. Therefore, allowing addicts to descend into the depths of addiction has consequences for everyone.
You want to google addicted doctors and nurses, it is not a small problem. I have helped both get clean.
I know perfectly well that doctors and nurses become addicted. I have expressed doubt that they can continue to perform adequately at their jobs while being substance abusers. If substance abuse is not deleterious to optimal job performance, then why bother helping them to get clean?
Maybe you could do your own research before you post an opinion. It’s not my job to inform you but you might want to inform yourself before you come out n favor of billions down a police-state rathole, destruction of the Constitution, a paramilitary police force, the growths of the alphabet soup agencies and filling the prisons with a lot of non-violent “felons” Do you really think this is working?
Just a thought.
It's working far better than the alternative.
As I pointed out before, you cannot eliminate an activity by making it legal. You only increase it. If legalizing an illegal and immoral activity were all that is necessary to stop it, then why are there over a million abortions per year since it has been legalized? When, prior to legalization, there were --maybe-- a few thousand per year?
It is a fact that no criminal activity has ever been eliminated by making it criminal. However, the rate of criminal behavior is drastically decreased through the criminal justice system (both by deterrence, and by keeping those prone to criminality off the streets so they can't commit crimes).
Also, I reject the notion that drug abusers are non-violent. There is a very strong correlation between drug abuse and domestic violence--while it may not be accurate to say that the drug abuse causes the violence, it is clear that the two are linked. There is also the violence that drug abusers commit to obtain drug money; we cannot expect this kind of crime to disappear just because buying and using drugs is made legal. Unless, that is, we decide to start handing out drugs paid for by taxpayers--which does not seem like a very appealing option--and whether it would work to decrease the incidence of crimes motivated by the prospect of quick monetary gain is debatable.
There are a lot of issues tied up with the push to legalize drugs, while really simplistic arguments are used to justify it. Since drug abuse leads to unemployability and no one is willing to tell addicts that since they got themselves into that situation, they can darn well face the consequences, we have to consider: how much more welfare can we support? How much more unemployment? While federal agencies are being cut back because so much is being spent on welfare, is it really wise to implement policies that further increase the level of dependency on the government for survival and decrease the funding for necessary government functions (like border security, military, etc.)? At what point does the system collapse?
You say its working far better than the alternative. Please describe in some detail the direct experience and the time you spent living where drugs are not a crime to use. Tell me how many years you spent in that environment and the level of violence committed by individuals who didn’t need to violate the law to buy, possess or use drugs.
Truly criminal behavior can be effectively fought because people actively seek to avoid being its victim, and victims (and/or their next of kin) actively cooperate in investigating it after the fact. In sharp contrast, everyone participating in a drug 'crime' wants it to succeed and acts to keep it from even being detected.
There is also the violence that drug abusers commit to obtain drug money; we cannot expect this kind of crime to disappear just because buying and using drugs is made legal.
We can expect it to decrease with the decrease in the drug prices that motivate it.
no one is willing to tell addicts that since they got themselves into that situation, they can darn well face the consequences
Speak for yourself - I'm entirely willing to tell them so.
Your assumption is incorrect - marijuana was criminalized at the behest of recently unemployed Prohibition enforcers drumming up new business by ranting about white-woman-seducing Negro jazz musicians and "crazy Mexicans."
Of course you don’t want to say anything about alcohol, because of your hypocrisy regarding cannabis vs alcohol use. Alcohol actually being a dangerous drug including impairing brain development in adolescents. You are completely unwilling to apply the same standards to alcohol as your misinformed opinion on cannabis. When you want alcohol prohibited and people made criminals for using it you may have a place to talk about cannabis prohibition.
There is just one problem with that. You would be correct, if we, as a society, allowed alcoholics to crawl off and die when they have progressed so far in their addiction that they are no longer able to function as productive members of society. But that isn't the case. As a society, we insist on taking care of them, on providing them minimal survival necessities. As a result, we spend a lot on welfare programs, on dealing with the homeless, and so forth. Therefore, allowing alcoholics to descend into the depths of addiction has consequences for everyone.
My editing points out you hypocrisy. Wouldn't want anyone taking away your alcohol would you?! Yet you favor we continue to spend billions and billions more making people who smoke a non-addictive plant criminals. Yours is some of the boldest and most distorted hypocrisy I have ever seen as your crawling off and dying, and unproductive members of society, welfare costs and homelessness, and the cost to the rest of us speech shows. As it DOES apply to alcoholics and not does not apply to cannabis users. Cannabis smokers are not crawling off to die...what utter nonsense...like we would buy that bs!
Anecdotal experiences are not a good basis for an argument; challenging me to produce anecdotal experiences to support a point that should be made by analysis of human behavior is ridiculous.
I think what you don't get is that when individuals are so impaired by drug abuse that they can no longer hold a job or otherwise function productively, their addiction does not disappear just because they do not have an income stream. This is completely independent of the legality of obtaining, possessing, or using drugs. When they become so impaired, and their only thought is how to get their next fix, they *will* turn to criminal means to obtain the money to buy the drugs, because drug pushers--whether legal or not--don't give away drugs for free.
There actually is not a place--at least in the developed world--where drug abuse is legal and tolerated. Given that the 19th century was fairly tolerant of drug use, and that places like opium dens were fairly common (at least in historical descriptions of the time)--there must be a compelling reason why drugs were made illegal and drug possession even carries the death penalty in some countries. (There are, right now, two Australians sentenced to death in Indonesia for smuggling drugs.) I do not think it's because of some puritanical wave that swept the world--it's probably because people saw the damage caused by drug addiction, and wanted to stop it.
There is also the fact that drug trafficking is big money--do you seriously think the drug cartels are going to go out of business if drugs are legalized, and they can *legally* entice more people into addiction, thus increasing their customer base?
What about crimes like mugging people for money, breaking into houses or businesses in order to steal cash or items that can be easily fenced for cash? Those crimes have nothing to do with the legality or lack thereof of psychoactive drugs, and everything to do with addictions so compelling that they drive the addict to do just about anything to get their next fix. And those crimes can hardly be described as victimless.
We can expect it to decrease with the decrease in the drug prices that motivate it.
Actually, I would expect the rate of crime associated with obtaining money to buy drugs to increase if drugs are legalized, because there will be more addicts, more people who, through addiction, become incapable of working and leading productive lives. That leads to more people who will be desperate enough to do anything to guarantee their next fix.
no one is willing to tell addicts that since they got themselves into that situation, they can darn well face the consequences
Speak for yourself - I'm entirely willing to tell them so.
Actually, I'm speaking as to what we do as a society, which is not necessarily reflective of what individuals do. Personally, I'm okay with addicts dying of exposure lying in ditches in their drug-induced stupors. But society doesn't like that. You see that at the government level with endless welfare handouts; you see that at the personal level every time someone hands money to a homeless person.
Your assumption is incorrect - marijuana was criminalized at the behest of recently unemployed Prohibition enforcers drumming up new business by ranting about white-woman-seducing Negro jazz musicians and "crazy Mexicans."
Actually, I do not know that. I do know that whenever I try to research what led to the anti-drug laws (anti-all drugs, not just marijuana), there are so many pro-legalization propaganda pieces out there that sifting through the distortions and outright fabrications to get to the truth about the matter is nearly impossible. Many of the stories told to obfuscate the rationale behind the efforts to criminalize drugs starting in the late 1800s don't even make sense. For example, the story that Dow lobbied for marijuana criminalization because it wanted to protect its nylon rope profits, or however that silly story goes, just does not make any sense when you ask , "Why did Dow *only* lobby for marijuana criminalization, and not for criminalization of every other material that can be used to make rope, if criminalizing marijuana was *only* about protecting Dow's profits?"
Because of the lack of reliable or even credible information, I have to form hypotheses as to why the push to criminalize drug use began in what was actually a fairly permissive environment. The hypothesis that best fits the facts is that people observed that drug users became addicted and utterly useless. Then, since they perceived those addicts as expensive burdens on society, and that those addicts became burdens out of personal choice (unlike, for example, a veteran who becomes disabled as a result of war injuries), they made the rational assumption that removing the source of self-inflicted disability would decrease the overall burden to society. I can say that because 1) we have the current experience of seeing people become useless through drug addiction, and 2) one can find accounts about the heroin/opium dens of the time, describing people who literally spent every waking moment in those dens in a drug induced stupor.
I think you are engaging in the technique of what is commonly called "setting up a straw man." You are assuming all kinds of things about something you know nothing about--you cannot possibly know what I know about alcohol, since I have not discussed it because the discussion here is about the dangers of marijuana. There actually is not one single conclusion one can make about the deleterious effects of marijuana use by discussing alcohol.
Straw man arguments are a favorite tactic to use when one cannot defend one's position factually.
Actually, not. Addiction physically changes the structure of parts of the brain related to impulse control and pleasure seeking, and is entirely independent of any physiological effects caused by chemical disruptions of metabolic pathways. What I was pointing out is that chemical dependencies are not necessary for addiction to occur. People *do* become addicted to non-chemical activities like gambling, and the damage they cause with those addictions is every bit as bad as the damage caused by addiction to chemicals (whether those chemicals also disrupt other biochemical pathways or not). When someone decides against doing productive activities like going to class, writing a resume, etc., in favor of getting high, they display characteristics of addictive behavior.
My editing points out you hypocrisy. Wouldn't want anyone taking away your alcohol would you?! ... Cannabis smokers are not crawling off to die...what utter nonsense...like we would buy that bs!
Once again, straw man.
Marijuana use must be considered on its own characteristics, not the characteristics of any other substance. I realize that a large part of the push towards marijuana legalization is based on the premise that marijuana is perfectly safe, and that organizations like NORML routinely publish propaganda pieces supporting that narrative. I am also very aware of the fact that people want to get intoxicated, and want to believe that the intoxicant of their choice is perfectly safe. But this is not true. (Hint: the word intoxicate has as its root the word "toxic"--intoxicants of any type actually do poison you, and for some biological reason, the sub-lethal effects of some toxins are perceived as pleasurable.)
Personally, I think that we are making a big mistake by rushing to legalize marijuana on the basis of false claims of harmlessness. If there is a case to be made to legalize marijuana, it needs to be made on the basis of factual and honest discussion of the effects of marijuana, and on the likely outcomes of legalization, which can be predicted based on the known characteristics of marijuana.
Marijuana use most often starts during the teen years, at a time when the brain is extremely sensitive to its effects because it is still developing. The disruption of normal brain development is permanent--the effects won't go away just because the user stops using. How many kids are going to end up permanently impaired because of short-sighted pushes to legalization without first honestly considering the consequences? As a society, are we really willing to throw those kids away and make them permanent burdens on society?
Drug trafficking is big money BECAUSE it is illegal. I’m continually amazed that the fascist, anti-Constitutionalist, police-state fans somehow can’t get that simple fact through their heads.
Let the drug users suffer. Let their foolishness cost them. It should no longer be costing the rest of us billions, every year in enforcement, incarceration, court costs and the attendant corruption of our police and judiciary. Cut the fools loose.
I do not fear any significant rise in usage; the experience of the very well developed nation of Portugal has already been cited and is well documented. The present path this country is on is simply not producing the intended results and is instead doing irreparable harm to the nation, it’s tax-payers and our Constitution.
The same argument can be made about alcohol.
And it’s a far more dangerous substance.
Shouldn’t we ban it first?
“Though advocates won in three states last November, they lost in 26 out of 31 localities that were voting on whether or not to allow pot shops in their neighborhood. That tells me that legalization in theory gets more support than legalization in practice.
http://kevinsabet.com/survey-a-majority-of-americans-favor-pot-legalization
Truly criminal behavior can be effectively fought because people actively seek to avoid being its victim, and victims (and/or their next of kin) actively cooperate in investigating it after the fact. In sharp contrast, everyone participating in a drug 'crime' wants it to succeed and acts to keep it from even being detected.
What about crimes like mugging people for money, breaking into houses or businesses in order to steal cash or items that can be easily fenced for cash? Those crimes have nothing to do with the legality or lack thereof of psychoactive drugs, and everything to do with addictions so compelling that they drive the addict to do just about anything to get their next fix. And those crimes can hardly be described as victimless.
Irrelevant to your original point about crime being decreased by law. These crimes have victims and thus can be and are effectively fought - and can be expected to decrease with the decrease in the drug prices that motivate it.
Actually, I would expect the rate of crime associated with obtaining money to buy drugs to increase if drugs are legalized, because there will be more addicts
The rate of crime would increase only if the number of addicts increased by more than the price dropped; this seems unlikely to say the least, since for the most addictive drugs there are few if any people who are deterred by the chance of arrest and conviction, but absent that chance would not be deterred by the inherent dangers of the drug.
Personally, I'm okay with addicts dying of exposure lying in ditches in their drug-induced stupors. But society doesn't like that. You see that at the government level with endless welfare handouts
So oppose that violation of rights - don't use it as an excuse for further violations of rights, including the taxpayer expense of enforcing drug criminalization.
Your assumption is incorrect - marijuana was criminalized at the behest of recently unemployed Prohibition enforcers drumming up new business by ranting about white-woman-seducing Negro jazz musicians and "crazy Mexicans."
Many of the stories told to obfuscate the rationale behind the efforts to criminalize drugs starting in the late 1800s don't even make sense. For example, the story that Dow lobbied for marijuana criminalization because it wanted to protect its nylon rope profits, or however that silly story goes, just does not make any sense when you ask , "Why did Dow *only* lobby for marijuana criminalization, and not for criminalization of every other material that can be used to make rope, if criminalizing marijuana was *only* about protecting Dow's profits?"
I can't vouch for the Dow story - but there's an obvious answer to your question: only in the case of hemp did Dow have a good cover story, and they knew that every little bit of competition suppression helps.
Because of the lack of reliable or even credible information, I have to form hypotheses as to why the push to criminalize drug use began in what was actually a fairly permissive environment. The hypothesis that best fits the facts is that people observed that drug users became addicted and utterly useless. Then, since they perceived those addicts as expensive burdens on society, and that those addicts became burdens out of personal choice (unlike, for example, a veteran who becomes disabled as a result of war injuries), they made the rational assumption that removing the source of self-inflicted disability would decrease the overall burden to society.
An hypothesis that fits the facts at least as well is that government bureaucrats did what conservatives know government bureaucrats regularly do: invent a problem as an excuse to get more power.
one can find accounts about the heroin/opium dens of the time, describing people who literally spent every waking moment in those dens in a drug induced stupor.
I've never seen such an account involving marijuana - the subject of this thread.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.