Marijuana's harm illusory

Rocky Mountain News ^ | January 7, 2003 | Paul Campos

[unspun]

Drug Category | Proportion of Users That Ever Became Dependent (%)

...on what, btw?

By reflection, this would have to do not only with the chemicals at work, but also with availability, stigma-vs.-acceptance, and conscience.

In my understanding, it shows that when a chemical is generally accepted and available (as alcohol is) then the liklihood of addiction goes up. If that is so (and here again, it is a matter of basic behavior and economics) than this fits the pattern and shows that we should not allow marijuana and the rest to become as pervasive as alcohol.

Besides, marijuana must taste terrible to smoke.

[unspun]

You've come into my thread totally unrelated to drugs and brought drugs into it. Who's obsessed?

Which thread? Oh, you mean in my "tag line?" I'm looking into the various responses that FR folks have about America's drug problem and the vehemence of the Drug Lib posters in FR. Hadn't intended upon doing so, until I noticed how aggressive those posters are.

[unspun]

If more people smoked marijuana than drank alcohol that would be OK by me. I can think of so many ways in which this would make nightlife far more pleasurable.

Even stinkier, though. In Chicago, the urb to my suburb, they seem likely to ban smoking from all public places, from what I see, by referendum, etc.

[unspun]

Ah yes.... Here's where it started with me. Just one innocent little comment favoring keeping marijuana smokers and other nonviolent offenders out of prison, and look a what's happened, because of all you drug-crazed hooligans! `->

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/backroom/817629/posts?page=38#38

[tacticalogic]

Wow. You got one reply, asking for a logical basis to support your opinion. I can see where that would put you over the edge.

[unspun]

Scary, ain't it?

Logic would dictate that a start isn't an entirity.

Is entirity spelled that way?

[tacticalogic]

Not quite scary. Somewhere between amusing and puzzling. I believe "entirity" is correct.

[unspun]

(t, I think you have a prior post to which I'd like to respond --concerning both the freedom and imperative we have to govern based upon our beliefs, and specifically not by ignoring our beliefs-- but this will do for now.)

The formation of the US model of government was not an attempt to see how much liberty we could all have. (Sit down if you need to;-) If that were the simple gist of it, our Constitution would have said so.

Here is the statement of intent, for our Constitution:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

As for legislation being solely for the purpose of keeping our rights from being violated, the answer to that, by the framers of the Constitution is: Nope. There are many examples, including provisions for state universities, exploration, etc., etc., while making it illegal for us not to support it all with our tax money.

But even if preventing the violation of our rights were the only aim of legislation, officials and the People who elect them are responsible to have the foresight in legislation and its execution, to be preemptive of the greater violations of rights and liberties, even if it means limits placed upon other liberties -- theoretically, even if those greater liberties are our own. "Extreme" examples of this would be a law requiring a driver's license, or a law requiring training in the use of firearms, before we are entitled to "conceal and carry," or a law against climing skyscrapers.

[unspun]

...or an ordinance against swiming on a beach with a riptide, or in a contaminated pond, etc., etc.

Fundamental stuff.

[MrLeRoy]

Drug Category | Proportion of Users That Ever Became Dependent (%)

...on what, btw?

On that particular drug. 32% of all those who have used tobacco became addicted to tobacco; 9% of all those who have used marijuana became addicted to marijuana; and so forth.

By reflection, this would have to do not only with the chemicals at work, but also with availability, stigma-vs.-acceptance, and conscience.

Agreed.

In my understanding, it shows that when a chemical is generally accepted and available (as alcohol is) then the liklihood of addiction goes up.

False; heroin is less accepted and available than alcohol, yet a higher percentage of heroin users end up addicted. Besides, your theory is counterintuitive; when a chemical is generally accepted and available, the number of people who try it will go up, but the percentage that become addicted would if anything be LOWER than for less accepted and available chemicals, because less acceptance and availability leads to the kind of behaviors that would encourage addiction (e.g., making the chemical a focus of one's activities rather than a sidelight).

[tacticalogic]

But even if preventing the violation of our rights were the only aim of legislation, officials and the People who elect them are responsible to have the foresight in legislation and its execution, to be preemptive of the greater violations of rights and liberties, even if it means limits placed upon other liberties -- theoretically, even if those greater liberties are our own.

Do you see any particular requirement that these Officials, and the people who elect them to the application of objective reason and critical logic in the formulation of this legislation? If they propose to pass laws to protect us from the Boogieman, do we have any responsibility to question wheather this Boogieman actually exists?

[MrLeRoy]

The formation of the US model of government was not an attempt to see how much liberty we could all have. [...] "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Which part of "secure the Blessings of Liberty" did you not understand?

As for legislation being solely for the purpose of keeping our rights from being violated, the answer to that, by the framers of the Constitution is: Nope. There are many examples, including provisions for state universities, exploration, etc., etc.,

Where in the Constitution are those provided for?

[MrLeRoy]

an ordinance against swiming on a beach with a riptide, or in a contaminated pond

I'm against them---clearly post the dangers, then step back and let the foolhardy cleanse themselves from the gene pool.

[unspun]

On that particular drug. 32% of all those who have used tobacco became addicted to tobacco; 9% of all those who have used marijuana became addicted to marijuana; and so forth.

They should have polled those who have used marijuana to find out whether they became addicted on any chemical (besides alcohol, if you like).

[unspun]

False; heroin is less accepted and available than alcohol, yet a higher percentage of heroin users end up addicted. Besides, your theory is counterintuitive; when a chemical is generally accepted and available, the number of people who try it will go up, but the percentage that become addicted would if anything be LOWER than for less accepted and available chemicals, because less acceptance and availability leads to the kind of behaviors that would encourage addiction (e.g., making the chemical a focus of one's activities rather than a sidelight).

Can't see it that way. Availability with the excuse of being generally accepted is a key for alcohol abuse, I believe it's clear. Kind of a "hide in plain sight" thing. As for heroin, it's simply HIGHLY addictive. Ask most uses. Then ask them if they were introduced to psychotropic/narcotic drugs by using marijuana.

[MrLeRoy]

They should have polled those who have used marijuana to find out whether they became addicted on any chemical (besides alcohol, if you like).

Why?

[unspun]

Do you see any particular requirement that these Officials, and the people who elect them to the application of objective reason and critical logic in the formulation of this legislation? If they propose to pass laws to protect us from the Boogieman, do we have any responsibility to question wheather this Boogieman actually exists?

Yes. Yes. Also conviction, wisdom, moral sensitivity, as well as calculating logic. Such requirements is in the realm of those popular principles upon which the founding fathers repeatedly asserted that our Republic rests.

[MrLeRoy]

Availability with the excuse of being generally accepted is a key for alcohol abuse, I believe it's clear. Kind of a "hide in plain sight" thing.

Nonsense; use is easy to hide, and abuse hard to hide, regardless of legality.

As for heroin, it's simply HIGHLY addictive.

And marijuana is less addictive than alcohol.

Ask most uses. Then ask them if they were introduced to psychotropic/narcotic drugs by using marijuana.

No, most of them were probably introduced by beer.

[unspun]

Which part of "secure the Blessings of Liberty" did you not understand?

Let's look at those intents and purposes again:
1. a more perfect Union 8-o
2. establish Justice
3. insure domestic Tranquility
4. provide for the common defence
5. promote the general Welfare 8-o
6. and secure the Blessings of Liberty

Notice the order. Notice also that liberty is referred to as a Capital "B" Blessing. Those who ended this document by referring to "the Year of our Lord" declared at the beginning that liberty is a blessing rewarded by moralistic care for all of the above. Surely the mention of "a more perfect union" also refers to an overriding purpose of government to be for the quality of the life of its People, under the eyes of God.

Where in the Constitution are those provided for?

Good question, certainly allowed to the states and whatever other non-federal partnership the People may determine with their governance, by means of the 10th Amendment.

Like I said before, I think it would be a good idea to get more realistic about what is and is not a federal power; also what should and should not be, since the 1780's.

[MrLeRoy]

Notice the order. [...] [The Founders] declared at the beginning that liberty is a blessing rewarded by moralistic care for all of the above.

Your conclusion does not follow from your premise.

Surely the mention of "a more perfect union" also refers to an overriding purpose of government to be for the quality of the life of its People, under the eyes of God.

Nope---it refers to the flaws of the Articles of Confederation.