Research helps dispel marijuana myths

Sober Talk ^ | Thursday, August 1, 2002 | By BECKY CLARK, MSW, CSW

[Behind Liberal Lines]

As we endeavor toward a more lucid and informed discussion of substance abuse, let's deconstruct the mystique of marijuana and recognize it for the dangerous drug that it is.

Marijuana is a substance that's worthy of our concern. It is the most prevalent of all illicit drugs used in the country. The 2000 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse reported that 34 percent of Americans have used marijuana in their lifetime and 5 percent are current users.

[dirtboy]

jayef, that article referenced in your post #377 should be posted on the main forum, if it hasn't been already. Would you like to post it, or should I?

[jayef]

Do you even know what he is talking about?

[Nate505]

"In Germany it is forbidden to deal, import, export deliver and buy drugs, punishable by a sentence of a maximum of 4 years. "

"In Germany usage of drugs is not illegal, but possession is. You will be arrested when possessing more than 10 grams in most districts. After conviction one may choose between jail and a program to get off drugs. "

You could be right. I thought the German Supreme Court overturned that law, but in effect, they just recommended police not to arrest people caught with small quantities.

http://www.ndsn.org/JULY94/GERMANY.html

"Hey, why don't you people come over here and enjoy the nice laws here. But don't go to Rotterdam, because there is a chance you might get kicked out, because there citizens took matters in their own hands and kicked out all the junks they could find."

What is a 'junks'? A junkie? That's typically slang for a heroin addict. Since I've never tried heroin in my life, that wouldn't apply to me. Seeing as they still have hundreds of coffeeshops there, they didn't do anything to the coffeeshops.

"Amsterdam may be nice. But don't go to 'de Bijlmer' at night. You will be mugged or shot just as quickly as in the worst parts of NY, while there only live less than a million people. How come Dutch cities, which are much smaller than US cities, are just as dangerous?"

Probably because you don't know much about US cities. Gary Indiana is one of the most dangerous US cities. Population 102,000. In fact, not one city in Colorado, not even Denver, has a million people. I don't have the data for that part of Amsterdam in murder rates, but Gary Indiana's murder rate was 59.4 people per 100,000 in 2000. I really doubt 'de Bijlmer' is higher than that.

"Ask the people in Rotterdam, where half the people feel so unsafe to go on the streets at evenings. "

I don't have the stats, but they sound like wusses to me. If you give me the stats, I can show you comparable cities over here whose streets that I've walked on in the evenings.

"Gee, it sounds like we in the Netherlands are doings something wrong, as there are four times a much murders in Amsterdam per 1000 citizens than in Rome."

Well, you have a long way to go before you beat many of the cities we have here. How does Amsterdam compare to London, Paris, Burssels, Berlin, Madrid, and Copenhagen?

[dirtboy]

It is already posted here

[FreeTally]

I believe that there is a difference between someones personal property at home and a business where people are employed.

I don't. Private property is private property. If I own it, then I own it, no matter what it is used for.

One has the right to not invite (fill in the race, religion, sexual orientation here) people to their homes. However I believe that business should not be able to discriminate against these people at the workplace.

Sorry, the basis of a free society is freedom of association. IF someone other than me can force me to associate with someone, then I am essentially a slave.

Granted I do NOT have to accept an invite to someones home if that invitation is dependant on the host rifling thru my ladies purse and my pants pockets. BUT there generally is no financial harm in refusing an invitation to visit someone's home. However, in order to work one MUST (except those who are self employed) go to the work site. The fact that one must enter the property on threat of unemployment/poverty/hunger, IMHO puts that property under public domain as far as the BoR goes.

Oh, good Lord! How is this different than Marxism? You are claiming someone has a right to my money, my property and any job I offer, based upon some supposed right not to be unemployed, impoverished or hungry. Jeez!

Let me make an example ... lets say that the police have been privatized, since they are now under the auspicies of a private company are they now exempt from the BoR ? I certainly hope not.

The Constitution, and Natural Law, allows for "the State" to punish crimes - thus have a police force. The "police" can not be privatized. Faulty analogy.

If businesses were left without ANY control it is also my opinion we would quickly return to the days of sweatshops and child labor.

Nope. You are buying into the "without the government, evil capitalists would oppress everyone" argument. This is the basis of Marxism/socialism.

Though I am a little "l" libertarian edging on RLC I believe this is one area that needs to be controlled.

Please, stop refering to yourself as a libertarian. This position you have taken is the anti-thesis of our beliefs.

[headsonpikes]

"You mean you issued a challenge without having thought through how to carry it out?"

Why, yes. I doubt that it's an insurmountable problem. In my life experience, it has rarely been possible to have worked out all necessary steps in advance to solving a problem or creating product.

"Disorientation"...Please...I'll assume that was a jest. ;^)

And btw, i'm uninterested in personal attacks, except as amusing rejoinders. ;^)

[headsonpikes]

Oh, and you've got to include CJ on your team. ;^)

[Scourge of God]

A perfect example of crap posing as documented research.

How amusing! You slam the lack of research, and then offer no research to back up your point!

Ah, sweet ignorance, that we all could be so simple.

Scourge

[liberallarry]

I offered personal experience. Others offered research plus criticism. You offered nothing - not even the effort to read the entire thread.

[jayef]

What, the point that people can use marijuana recreationally and hold down professional jobs, lead a productive life, pay their taxes, go to church, essentially run their own lives without help from you or a nanny, puritan government? You can't be serious right? You don't get out much, do you?

[clamper1797]

The "police" can not be privatized

In my definition of police, prison guards are also "police". They HAVE been privatized so based on that definition, your statement about police not being able to be privatized is untrue.

As far as my not being a libertarian under your definition ...

Well ... I took that lib test and even with the views I previously stated, it said I was a personal freedom libertarian. If that test is incorrect perhaps they should change it.

You know Free Tally ,,, we have so far seen eye to eye on the issues. I'm somewhat surprised that you would react the way you did when I stepped a little out of the "party" line. This is what a lot of Libertarians accuse GOP's of doing.

BUT alright a better analogy ... the street in front of my house has been bought from the county by a private company. The company will not let ne use the sidewalk nor the street unless I submit to a strip search by their PRIVATE officers. Is THIS a violation of my rights. after all I don't have to use their street or sidewalk ... of course I can't leave my property with using them ... so I starve to death unless I comply.

An other analogy ...

ALL retail stores have formed a coalition in that they will not let anyone on their property who does NOT have the ID chip embedded and 666 tatooed to their head. Granted I could grow my own food BUT the real estate company / title companies are also part of this coalition so I can't buy property and the seed store won't let me buy seed for the same reason ... oh and that private water company .. they won't let me have water without that chip either ... NOW WHAT!!!!

[MEGoody]

"I'm not stoner BUT I'm up to it."

So the question is, which side of the question (pro-legalization or anti-legalization) are you on? I went back and read a few of your posts (granted I haven't searched them all) and it isn't clear. We need to know which team you'd be representing.

[vin-one]

Can I join in on the competition,

[clamper1797]

of course I can't leave my property with using them =

of course I can't leave my property without using them

[headsonpikes]

"We need to know which team..."

I sympathize with you; you're gonna have a tough time finding 5 competitors from your side who manage to be on the right-hand side of the Bell Curve.

But don't get desperate! ;^)

[Behind Liberal Lines]

Together with the tone, content and purpose of your other posts on this thread..

Which posts?

The ones with pictures of Cheech and Chong? Of Afroman? Of Scooby Doo and Shaggy?!?!

Nope. No light heartedness there.

Sheesh.

You're like the stoners' own Joe Friday.

Take your "jokes" elsewhere, Mister.

[clamper1797]

I am pro-decrimilization and VERY anti-WOD in it's present form.

I say pro-decrimilization because I believe that the Federal Government was never granted the power to declare a prohibition and there has not the power to declare any substance illegal.

[clamper1797]

and there has not the power =

and therefore does not have the power

Sorry I'm still in shock over Free Tally's response to me.

[FreeTally]

You know Free Tally ,,, we have so far seen eye to eye on the issues. I'm somewhat surprised that you would react the way you did when I stepped a little out of the "party" line. This is what a lot of Libertarians accuse GOP's of doing.

I'm sorry you feel that way, but when someone attacks freedom of association, I see no room for accepting they believe in libertarian positions. Like I stated before, freedom of association IS the basis of a free people. This concept is not even debatable.

BUT alright a better analogy ... the street in front of my house has been bought from the county by a private company. The company will not let ne use the sidewalk nor the street unless I submit to a strip search by their PRIVATE officers. Is THIS a violation of my rights. after all I don't have to use their street or sidewalk ... of course I can't leave my property with using them ... so I starve to death unless I comply.

Streets are usually dedicated as "public" and that can not be revoked. If it was a private road(yes, there many), then you created the situation you are in. Secondly, this is absurd, given commonly understood real estate law and concepts.

An other analogy ...

ALL retail stores have formed a coalition in that they will not let anyone on their property who does NOT have the ID chip embedded and 666 tatooed to their head. Granted I could grow my own food BUT the real estate company / title companies are also part of this coalition so I can't buy property and the seed store won't let me buy seed for the same reason ... oh and that private water company .. they won't let me have water without that chip either ... NOW WHAT!!!!

Again, absurd "without the government, we will all perish under the iron fist of capitalists" nonsense. Are you sure you have not been reading Marx? In addition, a well armed populance would prevent such a situation from ever occuring, IMO.

I have never had the discussion about "freedom of association" without these absurd analogies/situations being used. Think about it - this is the same argument that Jesse Jackass, Fat Al and their ilk use to justify handouts, quotas and policies that discrinate against all "non-blacks". Its the same argument, but slightly altered to be, "without government protection, racist whitey will oppress and destroy our race".

Many people do have the same opinion as you. But think about this: Would you patronize a business that openly stated "no black employees allowed"? I would assume not from your writings. Most people would be just like you. Guess what, the business wouldn't last. Same as if one or two businesses decided they would only pay $1.00/hr as the wage. No one would work for that company, and there would be tons of others offering reasonable, competitive wages.

You are buying in to the "capitalist conpsiracy" that Marxists/Socialists want you to believe - without government, every single owner of production would colude due to their greed and "shaft the little guy". They deny the free market. I do not.

[clamper1797]

One thing that I really confused about is that most liberty loving people would fight to their deaths to protect their God given unaliable rights. From what you say you will fight for those rights as long as it's the government who may violate them BUT you see no problem giving up those rights if it's private industry who tramples on them.

Well ... we will have to agree to disagree on that one. I myself will fight for those right no matter who is trying to usurp them. If that means that I am NOT a libertarian ... so be it.