Medical marijuana: The real stakes

"Currently. Why do you insist that percentage would remain after legalization?"

Rereading this I see that you are talking about the percentage of 18 to 20 year olds smoking marijuana compared to those younger than that. The reason it would stay the same is because 18 to 20 year olds are college aged people. Even if they aren't off in college many are out of the home and even those who are in the home are often given more leeway to stay out and do what they want than younger teens. These are prime partying years. I can sure remember being that age off at college. We threw down. There was always a keg party somewhere. Pot smoke wafted through the halls at the dorms. I went a little too crazy and neglected my studies and by the time I was 19 I had quit school and joined the Army. In the Army I was with a bunch of kids my age too and there wasn't any less partying going on than there was in college. Kids that age are always going to party a lot more on average than younger kids. That's just the way it works out.

I have one more comment on Alaska. The survey you talk about was one done by the University of Alaska that was compared to SAMHSA's national numbers. According to SAMHSA, in 1979 14.2% of people 12 to 17 reported past month use of marijuana. In 1988, the year of the University of Alaska survey, SAMHSA reported that 5.4% of those 12 to 17 were past month marijuana users. If it is true (I doubt it) that teen use in Alaska was double the national average, it was 10.8%. This is considerably less than nationwide use by 12 to 17 year olds in 1979. In fact, SAMHSA's numbers for 1985 showed that 10.2% of 12 to 17 year olds smoked pot in the month preceding the 1985 survey. So marijuana use by 12 to 17 year olds nationwide dropped by about half in three years. It could be that Alaska was just a little behind the times. In 1999, nine years after the law change, 10.4% of Alaskans 12 through 17 reported past month marijuana use. By 2002, 9.44% of Alaskans 12 through 17 reported past month use of marijuana, compared to the national average of 8.17%. That's not exactly a huge drop from the 1988 use numbers for people of that demographic. (I know I'm comparing SAMHSA's old numbers with their new ones but if you can compare some college survey with SAMHSA's numbers you've got to give me a little leeway on this.) It doesn't appear that the law change in 1990 brought about any remarkable reduction in marijuana use by teens in Alaska.

See Table 3 for SAMHSA's national past month marijuana statistics from 1979: http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/factsht/druguse/#table3

See Table 3b for SAMHSA's 1999 state by state past month marijuana use statistics: http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/NHSDA/99StateTabs/tables2.htm#3b

See Table A.2 for the 2002 numbers: http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/2k2State/html/appA.htm#taba.2

"And I'll bring it up again, you haven't seen use going up to 20% or 25% or more in places like Holland where they sell marijuana in shops."

And I'll bring it up again. DON'T COMPARE CULTURES. I seem to recall that Holland has a huge problem with underage drinking -- like double ours.

"AMSTERDAM — Dutch teenagers aged 15 and 16 are Europe's heaviest youth drinkers, with 25 percent drinking alcohol more than 10 times per month, according to new research."

The European School Survey on Alcohol and Other Drugs revealed on Tuesday that Dutch teens, boys in particular, drink often and in large quantities. Roughly one third of male teens will consume five or more glasses during each drinking session (binge drinking -- triple ours)."

"The study indicated that due to low drunkenness rates among young Dutch people, drinking alcohol in the Netherlands is a socially acceptable phenomenon and youths have become accustomed to drinking. Schools and parents should be take more responsibility, the report advised."
-- www.expatica.com

Could it be that the Holland youth would rather drink than smoke? And if Holland clamped down on underage drinking, would marijuana use increase?

The culture, the attitude, the laws are different. STOP comparing us to them, if you wish to retain what little credibility you have with me.

(Oh, according to the same article, "The survey found that 18 percent of young Dutch people questioned had smoked a joint in the month preceding the study." Our 12-17 rate is 8.17%.)

"I don't believe that teen use doubled in Alaska."

No, you don't want to believe that teen use doubled in Alaska.

"You don't have any proof that it doubled."

Other than the 1988 University of Alaska survey? Other than the fact that the people closest to the problem, the Alaskan voter, believed the survey and went to the polls to make marijuana illegal again?

Other than that, no.

"I didn't say anything about arrests. I don't know what the arrest numbers are. I was only talking about use numbers."

Well, under your legalization scenario, if 90% of the people illegally using marijuana are in the 18 - 20 age group, I would expect the arrests to reflect that.

"A lot of people want alcohol to be legal for 18 year olds but it isn't happening."

Alcohol was legal for 18-year-olds, so don't give me that "ain't happening" BS.

But my point is that you and others are claiming that marijuana is nowhere near as harmful as alcohol, yes? (Or are you going to back down on that claim now also?). Should be a heck of lot easier to legalize it for 18-year-olds than alcohol.

And what a nice introduction to drugs that would be.

"These drugs are much more dangerous than marijuana."

So? The argument would be that they're less dangerous than alcohol, which is your argument for marijuana legalization (need I remind you?).

So now TKDietz has a sliding scale for legalization? The drug has to be less dangerous than alcohol, but more than just a "little less" dangerous.

You ever get the feeling that there's a TKDietz's world, and then there's the real world?

"I still do not believe that simple possession of these or any other "recreational" drugs should be a felony though."

In how many states is it a felony for first time possession of a small amount of marijuana for personal use? Any? What are you talking about?

"This is considerably less than nationwide use by 12 to 17 year olds in 1979."

Yeah, so?

It could very well be that Alaskan teen use in 1979 was 28.4%. Do you know that it wasn't? Do you know what it was?

Yes, overall teen use fell from 1979 to 2002. But, overall teen use bottomed out in 1988-1990 at 5.4% and remained relatively flat for the next 10 years or so while Alaskan teen use continued to fall another 50%.

You're saying that continued free fall was due to a lag? Any other state or states lagging besides Alaska to support that contention?

Just a coincidence that Alaskan teen use fell 50% after making marijuana illegal again while use in the rest of the country remained flat?

I don't buy your "lag" theory. You have nothing to support it. You don't even have a reason why you think it would lag to begin with. Why not lead?

"The DEA guys should be converted to border guards"

Well, there goes that savings, huh?

"If you mean however what about those who would ship U.S. made drugs to other countries... let them worry about it.. not our concern,"

Can they fly over and napalm our poppy fields and our marijuana fields like we currently do to countries that export their drugs to us?

"Also make it a fine punishable by a minimum 20 years in prison for the exportation of drugs ..."

Well, there goes that savings, too.

"From what I see, about 13% on possession alone, total of 30% from selling..."

Where do you "see" those numbers? I have a link to DOJ numbers that show 22% in jail and prison on drug-only convictions.

"Drug-related crime can be considered to include criminal offences in breach of drug legislation, crimes committed under the influence of illicit drugs, crimes committed by users to support their drug habit..."

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Not really honest of you to inflate the numbers by including drug related crime.

Legalize drugs and those related crimes remain. You kill a guy under the influence of PCP and it's still murder if PCP is legal or not -- and you're still going to prison. And ... there goes those savings.

"Honestly Robert, the point is it should be taxed and those revenues earmarked for such programs... not to negate the whole idea."

We were told that the state tax revenue (and the huge court settlements) from cigarettes would go to stop-smoking advertising and clinics. It hasn't. Why would you expect state tax revenue from drugs to be any different?

I don't need to refute that chart. I'm sure the source of it is refutation enough.

Care to provide it?

"Just a coincidence that Alaskan teen use fell 50% after making marijuana illegal again while use in the rest of the country remained flat?"

Where are you getting that it fell 50%? If it really was double the national average for persons 12 to 17 in 1988, it was 10.8% in 1988 because the national average was 5.4%. I've read that it was almost double, if you believe the results of the college survey compared to SAMHSA's number. So even if the college survey was right on the money it probably wasn't even 10.8%. In 1999, it was 10.4%, about the same as it was eleven years prior in 1988, again only if you believe the college survey was an accurate representation of actual marijuana use numbers for Alaskans 12 through 17. It may very well have gone down with the rest of the nation by 1990. As we can see between 1985 and 1988 the national numbers dropped by half and the same could have happened in Alaska, but by 1999 it was back up again. We can't know for sure because the first state by state data appears to have been published by SAMHSA in 1999. Anyway, by 2002 use by Alaskans 12 to 17 was 9.44%. There is zero evidence of anything close to a 50% drop. And even if a 50% drop occurred during the period for which there were no state by state surveys, the rest of the nation saw actually more than a 50% drop in the late 1980's through 1992 and Alaska could have been just following the national trend, albeit just a little late.

If you say the laws passed in Alaska in 1990 reduced teen marijuana use by 50%, you are just making things up. There is no evidence to support that claim. If the college survey done in 1988 produced accurate results that were comparable to SAMHSA's numbers (a big if), then marijuana use by that demographic in Alaska as of 2002, the last time SAMHSA published state by state numbers, was only a little lower than it was back in 1988.

"So? The argument would be that they're less dangerous than alcohol[drugs like GHB, ketamine, LSD, peyote, ecstasy, and psilocyben], which is your argument for marijuana legalization (need I remind you?).

So now TKDietz has a sliding scale for legalization? The drug has to be less dangerous than alcohol, but more than just a "little less" dangerous."

I don't think these drugs are less dangerous than alcohol. I don't think marijuana is far less dangerous than alcohol either. None of this stuff is good for you. Where marijuana beats alcohol the most is that it doesn't cause as much impairment or cause people to lose control of themselves and do really stupid, harmful things as much as alcohol does. I can really see this in my work when I handle domestic violence cases. Most are cases where some drunk guy beats up on his wife, and I can't tell you how many times I've heard the woman say that the guy never does this except when he gets drunk. I never hear the same said about marijuana. It just doesn't do that to people. It doesn't make them mean and it doesn't turn them into risk takers that do stupid things and cause horrible accidents, certainly nowhere near as much as alcohol does. It is much safer for innocent people, those who aren't smoking it.

I don't think these other drugs compare nearly as favorably to alcohol as marijuana does for those who use them or for innocent people. I don't know much about these other drugs, but I think some of them are fairly addictive, like GHB and possibly ketamine. Man of them can cause a real lack of control in users, making them both dangerous to users and innocent people alike. Many can cause fatal or seriously harmful overdoses. Many can cause serious physical damage to users, including serious brain damage and psychological problems that can cause these people to be a real menace to or at least a real burden on society. They are all much "harder" drugs than marijuana, or even alcohol.

The way drugs compare to alcohol risk wise is only part of the equation. It is also important to look at the size of the market for these drugs, current availability and price, the numbers of people currently using them, the burden on law enforcement and the legal system, and so on. Relatively few people use these drugs compared to the millions who use marijuana. Marijuana is readily available at all times most everywhere in the country. Hardly anyone uses most of these other drugs and none of them are anywhere close to being as available as marijuana. There are places all over America where you wouldn't be able to find some of these drugs if you tried, and in many cases, these things only come around town occasionally. I can recall it being that way with drugs like shrooms and LSD when I was younger. Every once in a while someone might have these drugs, but there was certainly no regular supply available to anyone who wanted to use these drugs. Like alcohol marijuana is already widely available and can be found easily just about anywhere in the country. We rarely ever see people arrested for any of these other drugs you talk about. I don't know that anyone has ever been caught with GHB or ketamine in the county where I work. These other drugs just aren't used by that many people, and in most cases those who do use them only do so once or a few times. This is probably partly because of the health risks involved, but lack of availability undoubtedly plays a big part as well. Legalizing these other drugs would cause a huge increase in availability, and that would undoubtedly lead to a bug increase in use.

One other thing that would cause an increase in use of these drugs is that much more so than marijuana, legalizing them would cause a big increase in the perception of safety in using these drugs. This isn't because somehow because they would be legal they would all of the sudden be safer substances, it would be because if they were legal they would have to be much more pure. As it is if you buy a hit of ecstasy, mescaline, or psilicyben, you have no idea what you are getting. You don't know what kind of impurities or poisons might be in these drugs. You don't know if you are being sold something else instead of these drugs. You might be getting ripped off with talcum powder pressed into pills, or you might be getting a low dose of LSD mixed with speed to approximate ecstasy. You might be getting something really toxic that some idiot didn't cook up right. If these drugs were legal and sold at shops, many who might be afraid to take these drugs because they don't know what they would be getting wouldn't have that holding them back anymore. They wouldn't even have to deal with less than savory people, asking around and going from here to there looking for these drugs and all the while letting more and more people know what they are up to. They could just go down to a nice well lit shop and buy clean drugs, or send a close friend down so they could take their clean drugs without risk of it getting back to people they wouldn't want knowing about it.

Marijuana is different though. It's much easier to find and for the most part what you see is what you get. You are far less likely to get something that is cut with something toxic or get something that isn't what you paid for. You can just look in the bag and smell it. The way it looks is unmistakable. Since it's just plant material you don't have to worry about a bunch of chemicals being in it. Laced marijuana is exceedingly rare because for one you would most likely be able to detect it, and more importantly the things people would lace it with are more expensive than marijuana, so it makes no sense for someone to sell laced marijuana. It might be a little safer "purity" wise if regulated and sold at shops, but as it is there is far less concern about getting what you pay for and not something really harmful than there is with these other drugs. On top of that, since there are so many people who use it it's much easier to get some from people you trust than these other drugs, for which there are far fewer possible sources.

"In how many states is it a felony for first time possession of a small amount of marijuana for personal use? Any? What are you talking about?"

I was talking about these other drugs you insist would be legalized if marijuana was legalized. I don't know if first offense possession of marijuana is a felony in any state, but possession of the other drugs you mentioned is a felony in most every state. That makes no sense to me.

It doesn't make any sense to me that a second offense of simple possession of marijuana is treated as a felony in so many states either. The real fact of the matter is that hardly anyone actually quits smoking marijuana just because they were caught once. They don't change their friends and their lifestyles just because they got a misdemeanor marijuana conviction. Most are young people still feeling invincible and most will grow out of their pot smoking phase in time. The problem is that once they get busted once the likelihood that they'll get busted again increases considerably. In small towns like where I work the police know who has been busted and they'll keep an eye on them more than would be the case in a big city. Also, once they get arrested a record is created on the computer and if these guys are stopped for any reason if the police run their names it will come back that they have been arrested for marijuana possession. Then the police are going to try to think of some reason to search them and if they were in a vehicle the vehicle too. They may have been riding with someone else or at someone else's home, but if the police know of their record they'll be looking for more pot. It could be years later but if they find even a tiny amount of pot, it's going to be a felony.

I had a friend in law school who was busted three times for possession from the time he was eighteen till he turned twenty one. He lived in a small town and the same cop busted him all three times. He quit smoking a long time ago and now works for a major law firm doing legal work for Monsanto. Luckily for him, his family had enough money to hire a good lawyer and the judge and the prosecutor in the town where he lived weren't out to nail people for smoking pot so he was able to keep these arrests off his record. If he didn't come from a family with a little money or if was busted in another town where they weren't as understanding about marijuana he wouldn't be where he is today. There are an awful lot of people out there with similar stories who are now contributing members of society. There are also a lot out there who weren't so lucky who can't get good jobs today because of their felony records. There is really no good reason things have to be this way.

"Other than the 1988 University of Alaska survey? Other than the fact that the people closest to the problem, the Alaskan voter, believed the survey and went to the polls to make marijuana illegal again?"

The survey didn't show that use had doubled. Apparently the survey results showed use that was almost double that of the national average for persons 12 to 17. The national average for 12 to 17 year olds in 1988 when the University of Alaska did their survey was 5.4%, so I'm guessing that use in Alaska for that demographic must have been 10% or higher. Unfortunately, (and suspiciously I might add) the University of Alaska survey is not available online or in print form so that it can be had through inter-library loan. Anyway, to say that use doubled in Alaska you would have to know the use statistics from before the 1988 survey. You can't produce those numbers. All you can say is that according to what you have read somewhere about some survey the University of Alaska performed in 1988 that was compared to national government statistics for past month use of people 12 through 17, Alaskan teens were apparently using marijuana at almost twice the 5.4% national rate in 1988.

"If you say the laws passed in Alaska in 1990 reduced teen marijuana use by 50%, you are just making things up."

I'm saying the following: In 1988, the University of Alaska did a survey, the result of which showed that Alaskan teens were using marijuana at twice the national average. If the national average was indeed 5.4% in 1988, then that works out to 10.8% for Alaska.

Alaska made marijuana illegal again in 1990. Current surveys show that Alaskan teen use is now about the same as the national average. According to your survey, the 2002 national average is 8.17%; Alaska is 9.44%.

Don't look at this in absolutes. Alaskan teen use was double that of the rest of the nation. Alaska made marijuana illegal. Today, Alaskan teen use is about the same as the rest of the nation. The actual percentages are irrelevent.

Your sole argument is: The University of Alaska was either wrong or was lying. Hey, prove either one and I'm willing to discuss it. Without proof, you're looking just a little silly.

"If he didn't come from a family with a little money or if was busted in another town where they weren't as understanding about marijuana he wouldn't be where he is today."

Never occurred to him to simply stop smoking? Hey, why should he when he has a family with a little money and living in a town where they were understanding.

I'm sure you're telling me this anecdotal story because it's typical of 100% of the people who smoke marijuana. Left alone, they'll all end up working for major law firms. (shudder)

"I don't think these other drugs compare nearly as favorably to alcohol as marijuana does"

For the majority of people who want these drugs, they don't have to. If the basis for legalizing marijuana is that it's "not as dangerous" as alcohol, you've suddenly flung the door wide open to most, if not all, soft drugs.

Now, you can start backpedalling, saying that is goes beyond how dangerous a drug is. How we need to look at other factors such as the size of the market for these drugs, the numbers of people currently using them, etc.

Hey, that's all part of the 1970 CSA, yet you ignored that for marijuana. Oh, but these factors are important for the other soft drugs, huh? Uh-huh. I'm sure all the nitrous legalizers agree.

"The survey didn't show that use had doubled."

Did I say that? (seriously). Marijuana use was double, not had doubled.

The 1988 University of Alaska survey reported that the percentage of Alaskan teens using marijuana was double the national average.

I don't know that the survey covered 12 to 17 -- it could have been 13 to 19. Or 16 to 19. I don't know that they compared it to SAMHSA. Was SAMHSA the only data source out there?

SAMHSA was not the only source. There was also the Monitoring the Future survey surveying seniors in high school and they might have started surveying 8th and 10th graders by that time as well. But the data source the college used for the national numbers was SAMHSA. I know this for a fact. I do not know who the college surveyed though, or how many they surveyed, what questions were asked and how they were asked, and so on.

"Never occurred to him to simply stop smoking? Hey, why should he when he has a family with a little money and living in a town where they were understanding."

They don't quit here either where the judges and prosecutors are not at all understanding regardless of how much money you have. They stand there in court and say "yes sir" "no sir" to the judge and walk out talking about what a bunch of b.s. our whole system is. Almost everyone who smokes pot thinks the government has no business telling them they can't smoke pot. Almost all of them think pot should be legal. You don't see the same things with thieves, for instance. You never hear a car thief saying it should be legal to steal cars.

For a lot of these people, smoking pot is part of their lifestyle. Their friends all do it, and it would be hard for them to get away from it if they wanted to. Hardly any of them are just going to up and quit because they got caught. Most will eventually quit, but not because some guy with a badge or some man in a black robe tells them they have to. They quit because they grow up and other pressures of life take precedence over their youthful ways. The same will happen with most of their friends. People start getting married, having kids, careers, and so on, and sitting around getting stoned playing video games all the time is just not compatible with real life and all of the responsibilities that come with it.

"I'm sure you're telling me this anecdotal story because it's typical of 100% of the people who smoke marijuana. Left alone, they'll all end up working for major law firms. (shudder)"

The part about working for major law firms is not typical, but otherwise that's the way it works for most people. Most who smoke pot grow out of that phase in their lives. It's a shame that some of them come out of it stuck with felony or even misdemeanor records that will haunt them for life. Absolutely no good comes out of that policy, but it does cause harm.

"If the basis for legalizing marijuana is that it's "not as dangerous" as alcohol, you've suddenly flung the door wide open to most, if not all, soft drugs."

That's not the basis for legalizing marijuana. It's only one factor out of many.

"Now, you can start backpedalling, saying that is goes beyond how dangerous a drug is."

Who is backpedaling? I never said that the only reason marijuana should be legalized is that it is less dangerous than alcohol.

"I'm sure all the nitrous legalizers agree."

All what nitrous legalizers? Where are all of these nitrous legalizers?

I'm not going to waste my time arguing with you about legalizing these other drugs you call soft drugs. I don't want those other drugs legalized. Most people who think marijuana should be legal have no desire to legalize these other drugs. You aren't going to see any shops opening up selling GHB, LSD, ketamine, ecstasy, and so on, because a majority won't ever go for it. Only a tiny fraction of Americans want to see that happen, compared to around a third or more of Americans who think marijuana should be legal and controlled much like we control alcohol today. The percentage of Americans who feel this way is slowly but surely on the rise, and it's already big enough to give it a real chance of turning into a majority in the foreseeable future. I don't think it we'll ever see the same thing with these other drugs. Shoot, there will be plenty of robertpaulsens out there whining about the fact that we legalized marijuana and they surely wouldn't sit back and let another drugs slip by. And then there will be normal people like me who are satisfied with marijuana being legal but who would rather not open up the door on these more dangerous drugs that hardly anyone uses anyway. Keeping them illegal actually works, not so much at deterring people with fear of the law from using them, but at keeping availability low and making them much less desirable because of the risk of them being unsafe products due to lack of regulatory agencies keeping them pure, and the lack of legal redress for harms caused by "bad stuff."

"You don't see the same things with thieves, for instance."

Of course not. They knowingly broke the law and got caught. They take their punishment like an adult.

Not like the whiny pot smokers. The next time they complain, bitch-slap them and tell them to grow up.

They'd have much more credibility if they championed a change to the current marijuana laws before they got caught not after. How many of your marijuana clients are part of an active grass roots effort to change the marijuana laws in your state or at the federal level?

I rest my case, counselor.

support the basis of your statement, "the ratio could change because of relatively increased use in the lower 48"

Simple arithmetic: if either term in a ratio changes, the ratio itself changes. Product of public schooling, are you?

That does support the basis of your statement, "the ratio could change" all right. But, unfortunately, that was not my request.

Again, support the basis of your claim that, "the ratio could change because of relatively increased use in the lower 48". That is, where do you find the basis that the use increased in the lower 48? Just make it up to be argumentative (ie., trolling)?

That does support the basis of your statement, "the ratio could change" all right. But, unfortunately, that was not my request.

I have addressed what I actually said. You can beat your straw men yourself.