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.

[newcats]

If alcohol is used responsibly--socially, in moderation, with food--in any case not just to get plowed, then the undesirable effects like brain damage, liver damage, fetal alcohol syndrome, etc. are not a problem at all.

Care to show some studies supporting that statement?

[newcats]

Wrong answer, soap operas are not recreational narcotics.

Narcotic: a drug (as opium) that in moderate doses dulls the senses, relieves pain, and induces profound sleep but in excessive doses causes stupor, coma, or convulsions.

Sorry, but marijuana is NOT a narcotic. Never knew anyone to go into a coma or convulsions from smoking pot.
But if you insist, alcohol would fit this definition better.

[Whilom]

as long as they don't try to step on the Bill of Rights in doing so.

I agree that we must take extraordinary care to prevent and punish excesses. But I'm confident that the WOD is having a beneficial impact -- thus, the dealers and transporters screaming about their "constitutional" rights. I'm not confident that there will ever come a time when we can say, "Well, the battle is over; illegal drugs are no longer a threat to our society."

[tacticalogic]

I agree that we must take extraordinary care to prevent and punish excesses. But I'm confident that the WOD is having a beneficial impact -- thus, the dealers and transporters screaming about their "constitutional" rights. I'm not confident that there will ever come a time when we can say, "Well, the battle is over; illegal drugs are no longer a threat to our society."

The history of marijuana prohitiion has been one of excessive bureaucratic zeal and dogmatic ideology. All of the legitimate research done on it has shown that our current policy is excessive.

Is your confidence that the WOD is having a "beneficial impact" based on anything other than the information provided by those who wage that war? Has any bureaucracy ever presented information for public consumption showing that they're not having a "beneficial impact"?

[Whilom]

So how come the state hasn't stepped in and turned the dry counties wet or the wet counties dry?

It has. "Dry" counties are actually "wet." They can't sell alcohol in supermarkets or convenience stores, but every block has a "club" (even in restaurants) where alcohol is available. The dry-wet argument is actually about who gets to monopolize the trade. It's this failure to adequately protect the public from drunk drivers that convinces many of us that "a little bit legal" won't work with drugs, either. We haven't found a way to protect my grandkids from the use of alcohol by others. We haven't found a way to protect them, even, from the use of tobacco by others. Granted, we can't find ways to protect them from everything in life, but we ought to be able to prevent individuals and groups from claiming a "constitutional" right to deal dope to my grandkids, blow tobacco smoke in their faces, and run over and kill or maim them while driving drunk.

[tacticalogic]

Granted, we can't find ways to protect them from everything in life, but we ought to be able to prevent individuals and groups from claiming a "constitutional" right to deal dope to my grandkids, blow tobacco smoke in their faces, and run over and kill or maim them while driving drunk.

You sound like Sara Brady arguing that the NRA wants to turn schoolyards into free-fire zones, or Ted Kennedy arguing that the conservatives want to starve children and throw old people out on the street.

[Whilom]

Is your confidence that the WOD is having a "beneficial impact" based on anything other than the information provided by those who wage that war?

Yes -- the screaming of dealers and transporters and their political and judicial enablers about their "constitutional" right to deal and transport illegal drugs.

[Whilom]

I also sound like a conservative who won't sit and watch the druggies kill our country while masquerading as little Tommy Jefferson.

[Texaggie79]

They didn't die for your right to watch TV, so can we ban that? They also didn't die for your right to eat a Big mac, so we can criminalize the sale of cheeseburgers eh?

[tacticalogic]

Yes -- the screaming of dealers and transporters and their political and judicial enablers about their "constitutional" right to deal and transport illegal drugs.

Hyperbole generously laced with perjoratives. You could just as well argue that anyone who thinks the EPA has gotten out of hand just wants to dump PCB's in your drinking water.

[kidd]

It's amazing how those who claim that libertarians represent more than anti-drug law idiots can't see that their own integrity goes up in smoke when their golden calf of marijuana is ridiculed.

Boy, you nailed it there. Libertaians are against taxes, government programs and socialism until the discussion turns to drug legalization. Then suddenly they are all in favor of the increased revenue that will be produced by taxing the drugs, an increase in drug rehab programs and socialized medicine to handle the increases in overdoses that will result from legalized drug use.

[kidd]

My experience is that people who are regular users of marijuana are not physically addicted, rather they have adopted a lifestyle that centers around its use. To criticize pot is to criticize their lifestyle.

[tacticalogic]

I also sound like a conservative who won't sit and watch the druggies kill our country while masquerading as little Tommy Jefferson.

You'll sit and watch FDR's New Deal doctrines gut the idea of constitutional limits on the federal goverment's authority, because Harry Anslinger's propaganda has you paralyzed with fear. They've got you convinced the sky is falling, and they're the only ones that can hold it up there.

[Behind Liberal Lines]

I think that's true for a lot of liberal pot smokers.

They look at it like: we smoked pot, we fought for civil rights, we protested the vietnam war. Ergo, pot smoking is as idealistic as the others.

Conservative pot smokers are another tale entirely. I don't get the appeal.

[rb22982]

Considering many of them grew and smoke it, I'd say so.

You know that federal drug laws were started during Woodrow Wilson and FDR, and we all know how much they exemplify conservatism.

Marijuana is safer, less addictive, less of a high than alcohol and is impossible to die from. There is no logical reason to keep marijuana illegal and alcohol legal except for being a true hypocrite.

[jayef]

I guess the point is that if marijuana were legalized, nobody is going to make you smoke it.

[jayef]

So I can't be an occasional marijuana user and be moral and religious?

That's interesting. I wonder what these folks think:

http://www.christiansforcannabis.com/index.html

[dcwusmc]

Oops, my bad. You're right, of course. The WODDIES must feel right at home.

[jayef]

Yes, if you could build a Ministry of Love, I'm sure you would.

[jayef]

I kind of think they would be aghast at the country as it is today and not because people were smoking pot.

They might be a little more concerned at the size of the government, the number of people in prison, the total shredding of the bill of rights.

I'm sure you have a different view, but then I'm just a doper, a pothead, a libertarian . . . surely your opinion is far more just and proper.