Jamaica: Ganja and crime (shocking new suggestion that pot may be related to crime in some way)

The Jamaica Gleaner ^ | November 27, 2005

[Stoat]

Ganja and crime
published: Sunday | November 27, 2005

The scientific debate in Jamaica about the dangers of marijuana use is often obfuscated by a subtle cultural bias based in part on a support of Rastafarians who claim that the herb is a sacramental part of their religious practice, but also by years of its use in folk medicine.

Now comes Dr. Winston De La Haye, director of the detoxification unit at the University Hospital of the West Indies and president of the Psychiatry Association of Jamaica, who believes that the use of ganja may well be a major contributing cause to the level of crime and violence in the society.

Dr. De La Haye points out that marijuana contains tetrahydro cannabinol which has been proven to exacerbate aggressive behaviour. If this is so, and given the wide use of ganja in Jamaica, the doctor's warning certainly deserves serious consideration and further objective assessment.

He contends that the drug can drive a person mad and, with understandable prudence, asks: Why take a chance?

We note that Professor Fred Hickling, another respected expert, while not disagreeing with Dr. De La Haye's bottom line warning about the dangers of using the drug, defuses the argument by listing a number of other social causes of violence such as poverty and despair, a position that can readily be conceded without in any way detracting from what might be a significant breakthrough in lessening the degree of violence in Jamaica.

Other causes of violence there may well be, but if smoking ganja is like throwing gasolene on smouldering coals, the unequivocal condemnation of its use may be worth trying, backed up with a strong public education campaign to bring home to the populace, especially the youngsters, that by smoking ganja, they may be playing with fire in more ways than one.

This suggestion runs counter to the present popular attitude that the use of ganja should be decriminalised, supported by the recommendations of the National Commission on Ganja which was set up in November 2000.

But in light of Dr. De La Haye's pronouncement, a renewed debate about marijuana use would seem to be in order, one that is non-emotional and focused, not on the general question of whether marijuana is good or bad, but whether it is indeed a contributory cause to violent behaviour.

Certainly there has developed in Jamaica an almost knee-jerk violent reaction to 'dissing' or other relatively minor provocations which needs some explanation. Dr. De La Haye has provided one such possible reason and we think his warning should be heeded.

[Keith in Iowa]

Your contention that legalizing drugs eliminating crime is patently absurd, and your continuing to propogate that myth is twaddle.

[Know your rights]

Dr. De La Haye [...] contends that the drug can drive a person mad

Where'd they find this laughable quack?

[Know your rights]

Not all poor people become criminals.

Nor do all pot smokers. Do you have a point?

[Junior_G]

I've been around drinkers thousands of times and the worst behavior I've witnessed is loud talking.

I would wager that at least one part of this statement is a lie.

[Know your rights]

i, on the other hand, have watched, many times, drunks fighting ( i was one of them)... Never did my friends and i, when stoned or baked out of our minds ,conjure up ill feelings towards one another or go out to look for trouble.

Ditto. If Moonman62 has really seen what he says, he's the only one I've ever heard.

[Know your rights]

Your contention that legalizing drugs eliminating crime

Where did he say that? It's a known historical fact that Prohibition fueled crime.

[eleni121]

Marijuana? Violence possibly but more likely, stupidity.

"Cognitive Deficits in Marijuana Smokers Persist After Use Stops"

NIDA-funded researchers Dr. Karen Bolla from the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore et al

http://www.nida.nih.gov/NIDA_Notes/NNVol18N5/Cognitive.html

[JTN]

Your contention that legalizing drugs eliminating crime is patently absurd, and your continuing to propogate that myth is twaddle.

It looks like we need to repeat my earlier post, just so we're clear on what you're calling "twaddle."

The linking of cannabis to violence is so ridiculous that it is not really worthy of response, but the link between violent crime and prohibition has been shown to be quite strong. One study ("Violence and the U.S. Prohibitions of Drugs and Alcohol" American Law and Economics Review, 1, Fall 1999) "suggest(s) the homicide rate is currently 25%-75% higher than it would be in the absence of drug prohibition." In a study for the Independent Institute, Economist Kirby Cundiff wrote, "My research indicates that the theory of the primary cause of violent crime in the United States which is most consistent with the available data is a violent black market caused by the War on Drugs today, and Prohibition in the 1920's."

Further, the implementation and repeal of alcohol prohibition coincided with a stunning increase and decrease in violent crime, respectively. A study of ten cities with a total population of ten million showed a 24% increase in crime between 1920 and 1921. Further, "A closer examination of the cities studied indicates that the greatest increases in crime occurred in those that were previously wet; the only cities to experience a decline in arrests were already dry when Prohibition was enacted." In 1933 when prohibition was repealed, crime rates began a massive reversal.

I look forward to the prohibitionists who point to this article as evidence to support prohibition stating that they now favor legalization and pointing to a drop in the crime rate as the reason.

Another interesting statement (or more twaddle) from the Independent Institute study is this.

One possible theory for the correlation between the homicide rate and the substance control proxy is that homicides are caused by drug and alcohol use, and therefore homicides increase as drug and alcohol arrests increase. This theory does not explain the data.

Oh, so marijuana doesn't increase bloodlust after all, huh? Well then, what explains the high murder rate in the U.S.? Here's a hint. Per capita federal spending on prohibition:

U.S. homicide rate:

So, could it be that the high homicide rate may just be due to gangs shooting it out over drug turf in a market that has huge profit margins due to its illegal status? What a hugh and series revelation!

[Keith in Iowa]

figures don't lie - and any liar can figure.

You appear to be pushing these statistics in a quest to legalize drugs. Well, guess what - I think that is a stupid idea. First you legalize drugs, then make it socially acceptable to use them. Then you have a nation of stoners ripe to be taken over by islamofascists who won't have to resort to terrorism or violence...they can just walk in and take over because everyone is stoned thanks to people like you.

[Zon]

Thanks for the post.

[JTN]

First you legalize drugs, then make it socially acceptable to use them. Then you have a nation of stoners ripe to be taken over by islamofascists who won't have to resort to terrorism or violence...they can just walk in and take over because everyone is stoned thanks to people like you.

Alcohol consumption did not increase after the repeal of prohibition. Scientific data says that drug use does not increase with the liberalization of drug laws.

BTW, you're aware that terrorists are profiting off of the black market in drugs, aren't you? You'll also notice, I hope, that they aren't profiting off of Jack Daniels.

[JTN]

No problem. What can I say? I'm passionate about the subject.

[Keith in Iowa]

What the hell - legalize drugs then. Have it your way. Won't be long, and we'll have a Taliban-like take over, and then see what's legal and what's not legal....you'll long for the days of the war on drugs. Human nature trumps your 'scientific data says that drug use does not increase with the liberalization of drug laws' - there are plenty of people who are alive simply because killing them would be illegal...I'm probably one of them...

[Wolfie]

And then there's the non-Gov't funded results.

There were no significant differences in cognitive decline between heavy users, light users, and nonusers of cannabis.

CG Lyketsos, E Garrett, KY Liang and JC Anthony Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, School of Medicine, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.

[JTN]

I don't know. I haven't heard about any Taliban-like take overs of Amsterdam. You know, that place where marijuana is legal, yet marijuana use remains about half of what it is here.

[Zon]

The following is an edited post from a previous thread:

If a person thinks they have been harmed by another person's act of possessing a drug then the person should take the drug possessor to court and convince an impartial jury. That way the "victim" may gain restitution for his or her pain and suffering.

You've never done that because you know that even if the judge didn't refuse the case as frivolous it would be highly improbable that you'd ever convince an impartial jury that the mere act of a person possessing drugs caused you harm. 

Instead, you'll argue that drug possession and or use causes harm to society -- causes harm to the group. You'll take a communitarian stand. Of course, you'll have to turn a blind eye to reality. That is, for a group of people to exist there is a prerequisite that first the individual must exist. 

Each time an individual is sacrificed -- in whole or in part -- the group suffers a loss.  Protect the rights of the smallest minority -- the lone individual -- and the rights of all minorities and the majority are protected.

The federal government creates each year, on average, 3,000 new laws and regulations. Each one of those laws has people that support it and will argue why the new law is necessary. Proclaiming that without those new laws people and society will run headlong into destruction.

In reality virtually every person breaks one or more laws several times a year. Yet with every person violating the law people and society have not moved toward self-destruction. Instead, individuals and society have increasingly prospered.

Over the past several years and decades people and society increasingly prospered despite not having the supposed benefits of future laws yet to come. Today, people and society increasingly prosper despite not having the supposed benefits of next years new laws or, new laws to come five, ten fifteen years in the future.

Ninety-eight percent of the people do not knowingly initiate force, threat of force or fraud against any person or their property. Though, through widespread ignorance most people negligently support government initiation of force/harm against persons and their property.

Setting aside for the moment that government officials in all three branches of government violate laws, if it were possible to apprehend all lawbreakers next week, society would run headlong into destruction. It would come to a screeching halt.

As it is, a very small fraction of lawbreakers are ever apprehended for the laws they violate. The few that are apprehended and punished cause a drain on their lives, families and society. Meanwhile everybody else that violates the same laws, while semi free, pay the price of having their brothers and sisters sacrificed for the greater good of society.

The beneficiaries are the politicians, bureaucrats and their automatons. They're parasites leeching off The People, the hosts. Value destroyers draining value producers.

War of Two Worlds

Value Producers
vs
Value Destroyers

[eleni121]

The pot legalizers persist in undermining our nation but thankfully the research gradually builds showing the connection between cannabis use and mental impairment.

Block, R.I., and Ghoneim, M.M. Effects of chronic marijuana use on human cognition. Psychopharmacology 110:219-228, 1993.

Pope, H.G., Jr.; Gruber, A.J.; and Yurgelun-Todd, D. The residual neuropsychological effects of cannabis: The current status of research. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 38:25-34, 1995.

Pope, H.G., Jr., and Yurgelun-Todd, D. The residual cognitive effects of heavy marijuana use in college students. JAMA 275(7):521-527, 1996.

[PaxMacian]

First, it is relegalize herb and it was legal longer than it has been illegal, even mandated by the government to be grown to outfit sailing ships with rope. Grown even by our founding fathers. It was grown as a mainstay for centuries in Europe. Your feeble fear mongering prophesies of the doom which will befall us if the seeds of this gift from God were permitted to be sown are nothing short of vile. You fear islamofascists, yet fascism is defined by nationalist and dictatorial rule like that we see in the war on herb's terroristic home invasions and assassinations. If they aren't assassinations then why aren't no-knock raids video taped for citizen's protection?

DEA=Taliban
Dietary laws enforced by DEAmen in black armor and black masks busting down doors of citizen's homes in the night fits the definition of terrorism. When there is no measurable affect of the war on drugs on either supply or demand then any activity by enforcement is simply for show of force and its resulting terror among the citizenry. Or worse, it could be just to justify their existence. In the end though the real terror lies in the ease to which one in power may attain and place upon another that which can send a man to jail for most of, if not the rest of, his life.

[muawiyah]

Since "smoking pot" is, in fact, a crime, then those who "smoke pot" are criminals.

The problem here is that it is virtually impossible to discuss MJ with MJ users.

[muawiyah]

Pot smokers just think they are better able to "focus". Been around a lot of them over the years and can't recall any of them who could "focus" on anything, not even a good BM.