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.

[PaxMacian]

That was not my argument.

[PaxMacian]

All secretions of the body are now property of the state.
You will be forced to turn over your secretions and to pay
for purity testing of your secretions. Failure to do so will
warrant termination of citizenship and forced servitude to
all others of purity ad infinitum. Welcome to your world.
I have some puke here for waiting for you to examine.

[absolootezer0]

most of the violence in just about any drug use comes from the user not being able to get more, seller warfare, or in avoiding arrest. all could be mostly cured by legalisation. usage on most drugs would go down due to more frequent OD deaths or people that no longer bother because it has lost its attraction as a rebellious act.
legalise and tax, then transfer DEA to border control.

[getsoutalive]

Didn't you leave out the part where you get to execute any intoxicated person that comes near you? Or have you altered your criteria somewhat?

[BlueStateDepression]

Come wet sand a while.

[Skywalk]

What a false dichotomy you set up there.

There are an array of beliefs and worldviews that you left out, but you are far more concerned with demonizing your opposition than being truthful or considered in your arguments.

[jayef]

Bingo. Does anyone remember their science education at all? Remember the concept of controls. Now, in this doctor's observations of the effects of marijuana on behavior, tell me exactly what is and is not controlled?

Sorry, but horseshit dressed up as science is still horseshit.

[Skywalk]

Dashwood is an abomination unto Free Republic.

[little jeremiah]

Okay, cite some examples. What other world view is there besides the two I mentioned? And please note that I am not coming from a narrow sectarian viewpoint.

Either a person recognizes that there exist eternal, universal absolute truths, or he rejects them. What third alternative is there? It's like day or night. There is no third alternative. Of course, there's dawn and dusk, so similarly some people try to straddle the two world views. But that's like sitting on a fence - neither comfortable nor secure.

By "demonize" what exactly do you mean? That I said something you don't agree with?

[chronic_loser]

My head says yes, but my heart says no. Maybe pot, but I have visions of needle park in Zurich tatooed on my inner eyelids. I can't think that any rational person would advocate more of that as a good thing.

[chronic_loser]

It is a myth, besides being unbiblical, to insist that biblical morality and civil law are coterminous. Before you scoff, let me add that I cut my teeth on Greg Bahnsen's "Theonomy and Christian Ethics," so I know a little bit of the arguments for civil codes reflecting the morality of biblical ethics.

However, to say "this is wrong" is not the same as saying "this should be illegal." If you want to know why, I have a few biblical and secular examples for you.

To say that we live in a universe of moral absolutes is not the same as saying that those moral absolutes should be enshrined in civil law. As a matter of fact, if you are a Christian, I would think you would argue that the civil law should NOT be coterminous to the moral law, simply because of the ultimate rebellion against all law this would provoke.

The question is not "is it wrong" but "should it be illegal" and the two are vastly different questions.

[chronic_loser]

Did you just flunk out of your Dale Carnegie course and just never got over being pissed off about it?

Or do the friendly and "let's talk about this to see if we can understand each other" tone of your posts have some other happy source that I missed somewhere?

[Know your rights]

All too often liberals trot out a statement

You would know.

I didn't see the Ku Klux Kennedy fortune diminish either

Red herring ... I never said it did, only that retaining Prohibition would have continued the easy cash flow that they otherwise had to work harder for. Do you really think de-"legitimizing" the Kennedys would have been a good enough reason to retain Prohibition?

[Know your rights]

I have visions of needle park in Zurich tatooed on my inner eyelids.

Legalizing use only in a small public area was about the dumbest way to legalize; I'd advocate a different approach.

[Know your rights]

Either a person recognizes that there exist eternal, universal absolute truths, or he rejects them.

I agree that there are. One of them is that the only proper function of government is to defend individual liberties.

[Know your rights]

So overdosing on a substance is the criteria for prohibition?

That'd be a saner criterion than anything that's been offered in support of the alcohol-yes-marijuana-no status quo.

[Know your rights]

absolutely no selling

Same rule for the deadly, addictive, violence-inducing drug alcohol? If not, why not?

[PaxMacian]

"source that I missed somewhere?"

http://www.controverscial.com/Sir%20Francis%20Dashwood.htm

[mugs99]

In fact there are thousands whose lives are cut short by using marijuana

Got any verifiable data to back up that claim?
.

[eleni121]

So many adverse effects...so little time.

http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofacts/marijuana.html