Study: Marijuana Does Not Lead to Hard Drugs

Reuters ^ | Dec. 2, 2002 | unknown

[JimRed]

Man created alcohol...

The way I heard it, God created alcohol so the Irish would not rule the world!

[tacticalogic]

It is my understanding that we cannot be fighting a war on things, whether they be drugs or guns, but on behaviors. In this case, it is drug abuse.

And in the scope of drug abuse, including alcohol and prescription drug abuse, does the cost of attempting to enforce and maintain a prohibition on marijuana have a proportional impact on that problem as a whole?

[TopQuark]

does the cost of attempting to enforce and maintain a prohibition on marijuana have a proportional impact on that problem as a whole?

That is a poor criterion. Some battles are fought to the end. What's the proportional impact of Alamo?

[tacticalogic]

That is a poor criterion. Some battles are fought to the end. What's the proportional impact of Alamo?

Why is it a poor criterion? Yes, some battles are fought to the end, if they are deemed worthy. What was the criterion under which this particular battle was engaged to start with? The Alamo wasn't fought over white women having sex with jazz musicians.

[Destructor]

"On that basis, there is no reason to do any research at all. Why waste money on research if you've already decided what the results should be, and will not accept any evidence to the contrary? It works for the environmentalists."

The environmentalists are a good example! Like the proponents of legalizing drugs, environmentalists don't let the truth stand in their way when it comes to these so-called "studies." One common line of thought between the pro-drug movement, and environmentalists is that the end justifies the means!

[TopQuark]

Exactly. This is a question of values, that's all. Proportionality has nothing to do with it. People who argue for war against drugs do so because of their values, just like those who advocate legalization. Expense is not the issue.

[tacticalogic]

The environmentalists are a good example! Like the proponents of legalizing drugs, environmentalists don't let the truth stand in their way when it comes to these so-called "studies." One common line of thought between the pro-drug movement, and environmentalists is that the end justifies the means!

Nice try, but nobody is going to buy it. Your "methodology be damned" attitude puts you in the company of the end-justifies-the-means zealots.

[Destructor]

Right back at ya! Apparently, that point went over your head, so I'll try to explain it so that even YOU can understand! I was trying to make the point that a political agenda can influence the results of these "studies," and they should be taken with a grain of salt.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

I was trying to make the point that a political agenda can influence the results of these "studies," and they should be taken with a grain of salt.

What then, exactly, is the RAND Corporation's political agenda? In the study itself, the researchers were careful to state that they neither supported nor opposed laws criminalizing marijuana.

[tacticalogic]

Exactly. This is a question of values, that's all. Proportionality has nothing to do with it. People who argue for war against drugs do so because of their values, just like those who advocate legalization. Expense is not the issue.

Then why do those who argue for a war on drugs not argue for that war to extend to alcohol, caffeine, and tobacco? If it is indeed a war on drug abuse, then where are the calls to incarcerate those who abuse alcohol in combination with prescription drugs (by the goverment's figures, that includes about 1 in 6 Americans over the age of 60)?

[tacticalogic]

I was trying to make the point that a political agenda can influence the results of these "studies," and they should be taken with a grain of salt.

Taken with a grain of salt is one thing. Dismissed outright as meaningless is quite another.

[tacticalogic]

Exactly. This is a question of values, that's all. Proportionality has nothing to do with it. People who argue for war against drugs do so because of their values, just like those who advocate legalization. Expense is not the issue.

This is a war on drug abuse. Proportionality has nothing to do with it, and expense is not an issue. It is a question of values - you are either for it or against it.

There are a whole bunch of wealthy, well connected people down at the Betty Ford Clinic being treated for alcohol and prescription drug addiction. By your reconing, either all of these people need to be locked up for drug abuse, or their doctors do for fraud for treating them for a non-existing condition. Which is it?

[Destructor]

"Taken with a grain of salt is one thing. Dismissed outright as meaningless is quite another."

I call 'em like I see 'em!

[tacticalogic]

I call 'em like I see 'em!

We all do. Some of us just like to look before we decide what we're seeing.

[TopQuark]

Which is it? It's something else altogether.

Human society consists of frail people who aspire to soemthing beyond them but fail. Some vice are unavoidably accepted as a result. The question is where to draw the circle. Alcohol is already within that circle, so with regard to it the question is of expulsion beyond the pale rather than status quo maintanace, which is what the war in drugs is trying to achive. These two tasks are widely different thus.

What you gave is a favorite among many non-example. The prescription drugs are not only within the circle by happenstance but by choice since they play a positive role. Some people will abuse them, as well as anything else, but that's another story altogether. MJ, in contrast, has no positive value other than some substitutable limit use in some cases. Legalization advocates do not suggest even that --- to make it a prescription drug. THis is a non-example.

[TopQuark]

I have addressed that in the previous post: the question of where to draw the circle and that of the status quo.

[tacticalogic]

The question is where to draw the circle.

And you will do this how, exactly, without any sense of proportionality, or any reference as to expense - either monetary or societal?

[wardaddy]

I think pot and harder drugs is relatively easy to prove as association but not causation.

How many on this forum who admit to smoking dope have also used other drugs?

I don't think pot causes hard drug use but it happens to be a usual first choice......but one could also make that claim about beer.

When I was growing up 30 years ago, I would submit that at least half of the kids I knew like myself who started out dope smoking (after beer) did indeed try other drugs. But, very few became junkies....and one must remember this was back when cocaine (which I disliked immediately Thank G-d) was considered benign.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

Human society consists of frail people who aspire to soemthing beyond them but fail. Some vice are unavoidably accepted as a result. The question is where to draw the circle.

Wrong---the question really is who are you to draw that circle, and by what authority do you draw it? Seems to me a bunch of pretty enlightened folks got together in the 18th century and crafted a few documents to answer both questions, and in our zeal to engineer a "perfect" society we forgot some of the most basic lessons they tried to teach us, chief among them the notion of limited government.

[TopQuark]

Wrong---the question really is who are you to draw that circle, and by what authority do you draw it?

AS I said, we continue to have a disconnect: you keep putting word in my mouth, and it gets a little tiring to keep pointing that out.