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.

[Scourge of God]

You call that taunting, ribbon clerk? I've read your other posts; there's nothing really there to respond to except your unfounded prejudices and internalized socialist agitprop. You seem very full of yourself when you're taunting teenagers; try me on, big boy. Your rationalizations for the status quo demonstrate only your lack of moral and ethical imagination. Mouthing slogans is your forte; all of which lies are based upon implicit or explicit socialist premises. You are a 'useful idiot' of American Socialism. Now, that's 'taunting'. Good day.

Hyuck.

Now put the Thesaurus away before you drop it on your foot.

[WyldKard]

Banning booze would be stupid. People have always consumed it, going back to the beginning of recorded history. I don't imbibe, but I realize that it's a big human thing to get drunk. So be it. That is not an argument to legalize pot.

Why not? Pot has been used since the beginning of time by many cultures. Until the early 1900's, it was legal. Opium was legal, hash was legal, essentially everything could be bought legal. What situation occured that required these things to become illegal? If banning booze is stupid and causes problems, then why is it not stupid to ban pot?

The republic will take care of itself: even Bill Clinton's best efforts to destroy us seem to be coming up short. I do not want to pay the costs for other people's inebriation. And I will if pot is legalized. If I have to pay, then I'd like the satisfaction of knowing the bastards robbing my money are in jail.

Well, it seems to me your problem is with taxes, not with people taking drugs. And here is a point where we are just not going to see eye to eye: I think the money we save by dismantling the WoD will be greater than the costs caused by legal pot. Plus, more violent crime will go down, because cops aren't wasting all their free time busting non-violent pot smokings, and letting rapists and murderers go early to make room for them.

I am ashamed to admit I don't know what the tenth is. However, I do whole-heartedly, without hesitation, embrace the belief that the issue, drug abuse, should be decided and handled by individual states. As nearly every single issue should.

Again, here is where we are in complete agreement. And for your personal edification:

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

You'll notice there is no amendment giving the FedGov the power to run a War on Drugs. Or a "War on Poverty". Or to have all these alphabet organizations. Seems to me, 95% of what the FedGov does violates Amendment 10.

While I do not like Prohibition, I would rather have Constitutionally-mandated Prohibition, than illegal FedGov prohibition.

Those things cost me money as well, I suppose. However, I imbibe in fatty foods, and I do so of my own free will.

Yeah, but:

1) You don't HAVE to eat fatty foods. You are choosing to eat fatty foods, POTENTIALLY cause yourself health problems, etc.

2) If I don't eat any fatty foods (a horrible lie, I just came back from the rib joint :), then I might think it very unfair that I have to pay taxes to take care of you when you need a corenary bypass. If I was a bancha tea drinkin', bean sprout eating Berkleyite, I would then think it perfectly justified to ban fatty foods. Yes? If I were that Berkleyite, my reasoning would be "We would save money, and Society wouldn't be negatively impacted." (trust me, I could twist the logic out appropriately to back that statement up :)

And I don't smoke, but smokers have the right to smoke. I just wish I didn't have to pay for the mofo's medical bills.

How do smokers have a "right" to smoke? It sure is getting the hell banned all over the place. If smokers have a right to smoke, how come pot smokers don't have a "right" to smoke?

Again, it sounds like your problem is with taxes, more than with drugs. Taxes are a noble thing to be against...

[headsonpikes]

"I am on the ramparts thrusting..."

Okay, so you prefer crystal meth to God's own herb, apparently.

FWIW, 'the historical 'Scourge of God' was, in fact, the archetypal barbarian, Attila.

But you're still a scourge; the 'Scourge of Hemmorhoids', perhaps.

[headsonpikes]

Believe it or not, many posters here are literate.

Present company cheerfully excepted.

Hyuck.

[Scourge of God]

Ciminality is defined by the state. Aren't you saying that all laws are just? Perhaps that's just a logical quibble.

That's a whole other argument, o' liberal one. Let's take it up another time.

What most of us have been trying to tell you is that bad behavior is not synonymous with pot use. That's pretty simple. Are you saying you simply refuse to believe it?

Bad behavior is not synonymous with pot use, true enough. You could say the same about booze. Yet, bad behavior is often linked to alcohol use, and the same is true for pot use. Could you possibly be denying this link?

If pot is legalized, I will end up paying for the excesses and bad judgment of those who use pot irresponsibly. Could you in any way deny this to be true?

Or, if you do believe it, are you saying that bad behavior by some pot users justifies making criminals of the rest of us - or at least prohibiting us from enjoying it?

Making criminals out of end users—no, I don't like to see it. Making criminals out of dealers, yes. Prohibiting you from enjoying it—yes. Go get drunk if you must take leave of your senses. I like life just fine sober—I don't need to alter my reality, unless it is through pure imagination.

[WyldKard]

Oh, come on now, guys. Cut SoG a LITTLE slack. He's about 90% in agreement with us where it counts. And anyone who's seem the sort of ill-temper I can display with people like CJ and KC knows I don't give praise lightly.

Seems to me the biggest target to go after if the Federal War on Drugs. If we framed the question that way, I wonder how many people on FR would still be against the idea? As I said before, I'd rather have it be a states issue, and take the risk of living in a "dry" state. At least the FedGov will respect what my State does. And it's much easier to work on changing the laws of an individual state.

God damnit, why couldn't the Civil War have been fought over something like this, instead of slavery? (Yes, I know, it was more about states rights than slavery, but the taint of defending slavery is always there..)

[JediGirl]

Making criminals out of end users—no, I don't like to see it. Making criminals out of dealers, yes. Prohibiting you from enjoying it—yes. Go get drunk if you must take leave of your senses. I like life just fine sober—I don't need to alter my reality, unless it is through pure imagination.

Right. Have you ever been in a state of religious 'bliss' (speaking in tongues, filled with the 'spirit' kind of thing) Do you think those those people fools for altering their reality?

[Scourge of God]

Again, it sounds like your problem is with taxes, more than with drugs. Taxes are a noble thing to be against...

You're coming close. I'm against legalization because:

• I'll pay the medical bills (through taxes and insurance premiums) of those who are irresponsible
• My family and I are in physical danger from inebriated fools
• Legalized pot will coarsen the culture
• It's just more temptation to those who are weak or uncertain about their values
• Some loathsome people will be made millionaires.

What more reason could anyone need?

[Scourge of God]

Right. Have you ever been in a state of religious 'bliss' (speaking in tongues, filled with the 'spirit' kind of thing) Do you think those those people fools for altering their reality?

No, but there was this girl I know who could really deal out the bliss. And, having been a stoner in the 70's, I can personally "testify" that her bliss was much more to be desired than being stoned.

[tacticalogic]

I'll second cutting SoG some slack for now. He seems to want to support State's Rights, and eventually he's going to have to choose between that and continuing federal prohibition. You can't have both.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

If pot is legalized, I will end up paying for the excesses and bad judgment of those who use pot irresponsibly.

Sounds like you have a tort on your hands. Why don't you shop your case to an ambulance chaser? If in fact you have been wrongfully supporting the excesses and bad judgment of pot users, you should be in line for a large settlement.

[Scourge of God]

Seems to me the biggest target to go after if the Federal War on Drugs. If we framed the question that way, I wonder how many people on FR would still be against the idea? As I said before, I'd rather have it be a states issue, and take the risk of living in a "dry" state. At least the FedGov will respect what my State does. And it's much easier to work on changing the laws of an individual state.

This is exactly my argument with talking about abortion with my liberal friends. And by the principals I hold dear, let it be so with legalization. Let each state frikkin' decide. For reasons I've stated, I'd choose to live in a dry, non-abortion state, under those situations.

[liberallarry]

bad behavior is often linked to alcohol use, and the same is true for pot use. Could you possibly be denying this link?

No.

If pot is legalized, I will end up paying for the excesses and bad judgment of those who use pot irresponsibly. Could you in any way deny this to be true?

Yes. You're already paying for it. Perhaps what you want to say is that you'll be paying considerably more if pot is legalized. You'll have to present argument to that effect. Let's see what you've got.

Prohibiting you from enjoying it—yes. Go get drunk if you must take leave of your senses. I like life just fine sober—I don't need to alter my reality, unless it is through pure imagination.

I don't like getting drunk. I don't care about how you live your life. Your ignorant characterizations of how I live mine only succeed in portraying you as provincial and inexperienced.

[Ken H]

You nailed that one!

I agree that this is first and foremost a Tenth Amendment issue, since the Federal government is the driving force behind the WOD. Always has been.

BTW, Cultural Jihad does believe that this should be a State, and not a Federal issue. I'm fairly certain he also stated that marijuana is basically harmless.

I think both sides of this debate are mistaken with regard to what his position is.

CJ-- Correct me if I have misstated your position on marijuana's harmlessness.

Regards.

[laredo44]

And stealing to support your habit is not a crime? Or how about being so stoned that your family suffers from your "detached existence" or your job loss because of your inability to be productive at work?

This is one of the most horribly evil posts I've yet read. Yours are the words of the tyrannt. You would control us all for the actions of a few. You have no place in a free society.

[WyldKard]

Sadly, you are taking a Socialist viewpoint in a lot of your reasons. I don't think you realize that though, but supporting laws against drugs for many of the reasons you espouse are inherantly Socialist. Not trying to pick a fight, that's just how I see it, and I'll explain why:

You're coming close. I'm against legalization because:

I'll pay the medical bills (through taxes and insurance premiums) of those who are irresponsible

My family and I are in physical danger from inebriated fools

Legalized pot will coarsen the culture It's just more temptation to those who are weak or uncertain about their values Some loathsome people will be made millionaires. What more reason could anyone need?

Your insurance premiums won't be affected nearly as much as those who are caught using. And if you don't like paying higher premiums, find another insurance company. Find one who tests users for drugs, so you know you aren't having to pay the load for drug users. You shouldn't be passing laws left and right to limit the free market. Insurance companies can sell insurance to whomever they wish, and if they want to sell to drug users, they can. You don't have to patronize those people.

As for the in danger of inebriated fools: The rate of danger you are in from alcohol and legal prescription drugs is far worse than something like pot. Pot is actually less disruptive to driving than alcohol OR being too tired, according to a few studies. (I haev a link somewhere, if you like.)

So logically, you should ban alcohol or being "too tired", because they are a greater danger in DUI than pot.

As for "coarsening the culture"...you are going to use laws to ban culture? Culture? Didn't the Soviet Union and China used to be big into that? Ban "Culturally Damaging" works? I find the idea of "banning culture" chilling (with few exceptions. Child Porn is not a "culture" it is a crime.)

As for temptation for the weak...laws are going to do little to deter THESE people. All you can do is hope to educate them sanely about the consequences of their actions. I mean, my family and I are endangered by second hand smokers, but I don't try to pass laws against smoking. I just move to another table.

As for "loathesome people" being made millionares..again..do you have a problem with Capitalism? If those people are providing a service or product people want, and can make money on it, more power to them. If you don't like the company, or those who run it, organize boycotts. Don't use Socialist rules to enforce your viewpoints on other companies. Vote with your dollars! That is the true American way.

The sad part about freedom is that you have to encourage responsibility..but you have to give people the chance to make their own choice about responsibility...and Socialist laws only discourage that sort of thing. You can't legislate stupidity away, unfortunately.

[Scourge of God]

Yes. You're already paying for it. Perhaps what you want to say is that you'll be paying considerably more if pot is legalized. You'll have to present argument to that effect. Let's see what you've got.

I've already covered this, o' liberal one. I'm happy to pay for prison time; as I see it I either pay for prison for them, or pay for the societal havoc they wreck. If I have to pay for one or the other, I'll pay to lock them up.

I don't like getting drunk. I don't care about how you live your life. Your ignorant characterizations of how I live mine only succeed in portraying you as provincial and inexperienced.

Here, as expected, we see the liberal resorting to their finest, time-honed tactic; hanging a label on your opponent. I am honored that you choose me to drop your H-bomb on.

Scourge

[tacticalogic]

What more reason could anyone need?

None, provided you don't have any qualms about the end justifying the means, and the idea of maintaining a Constitutionally limited Republic is of lesser or no value in the equation.

[vin-one]

Prohibiting you from enjoying it—yes. Go get drunk if you must take leave of your senses. I like life just fine sober—I don't need to alter my reality, unless it is through pure imagination.

See I don't like to get drunk it makes me fat and lazy and violent. with pot I'm mellow and pleasant