Using Marijuana May Not Raise the Risk of Using Harder Drugs (but look at alternative explanation)

RAND's Drug Policy Research Center ^ | December 2, 2002 | RAND's Drug Policy Research Center

[MrLeRoy]

and MLR "You're a better man than I am

I hate compliments---they really take the edge off the flame wars. ;-)

[unspun]

There are so many people with so many positions on all this stuff anyway, that it's a free for all each time. Yeee - hooo !!!

That's about the size of it---so knocking somebody for posting a tangent is probably pointless, and knocking them for an on-point reply to someone else's tangential post is downright silly.

If everyone in FR followed that discipline, we might have some very short "conversations" ...or not!

I would like to attempt to raise my horror threshhold regarding opinions from FReepers and pick up the topic of DRUGS, from recreational mind-manglers, to pharmaceuticals, taking up some substantial discussions about pragmatic solutions (the kind of thing I naively hoped might occur a couple weeks ago on that nonviolent drug offenders and release from prison post).

It could be (gulp) profitable to (gulp) confer about the issue of what policies could look like in a more rational America. Perhaps I could pick an article and start a thread in "RLC Liberty Caucus" -- that should be a nice quiet corner.

Anyone interested?

My Caveat: I would hope we could keep the range of opinion from just flying off into "no legislation, none of the time." That gets me wanting to join the Union troops and fight for the blue! If capital "L" Libertarians flood it with their favorite flaming fodder, it would crash and burn. Personnally, not looking for the lazy man's vision of utopia, nor the idea that if we have trouble with enforcing a law, just write it off like Worldcom, and who needs laws anyway? `-> That would just show that those who post for drug law liberalization are being disserved by an Totalibertarian assault.

I'm not really optimisitc about this, for those attracted to drug threads*, but it would be interesting to have a discussion about what might promote our welfare and our liberties significantly better. Once again, neither (actual) authoritarianism, nor anarchy --and the authoritarianism that inevitably follows chaos-- are quite the aim.

If we could have such a discussion, I might even invite tpaine. Well, afterward, anyway, eh tp?

I suppose it could be thought of as a test to see ""we"" could come up with rational answers for our People's governance, per this matter. Once again, not optimistic, but maybe two competing consensi(sp?) could develop. Maybe.

________________________________
*Come to think of it, I used to know someone who wore drug threads -- why "freaks" used to wear all those patches, don'tchaknow. Evidence that yes, there is something in their jeans.

[cinFLA]

This is easy. Other countries have decriminalized marijuana. Since then, has harder drug use increased in those countries?

Yes. This is easy.

[Hebrews 11:6]

What Scripture do you believe supports those claims?

Excellent question, one worthy of an essay exam in a Christian college's American History or Logic course. The "B" and "C" students would attempt to answer it, whereas the "A" students would spot the trap and throw it back into the professor's face, thusly:

They claimed it was "self-evident," thus requiring no Scriptural support. That puts the burden back onto those challenging their decision, to prove, either self-evidently or from Scripture, that liberty is not a God-given unalienable right and that they do not have the right to throw off a despot's rule.

[unspun]

And...?

[justshe]

---

WITHOUT Free Republic, you would be reading stories about President Albert Gore!
	Think about it! Isn't that worth a donation? Keep Our Republic Free Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD- It is in the breaking news sidebar!

[tpaine]

"If we could have such a discussion, I might even invite tpaine. Well, afterward, anyway, eh tp?"
-unspun-

How droll.
You claim to want "substantial discussions about pragmatic solutions", but every time the obvious & constitutional solution is mentioned: --
-- That of restoring reasonable regulations [not prohibitions] at state/local levels, -- you simply deny that this is acceptable.

[tacticalogic]

I suppose it could be thought of as a test to see ""we"" could come up with rational answers for our People's governance, per this matter.

I'm game, but I do have a question. Any particular reason you've limited the range of allowable discussion in one direction only?

[unspun]

I'm game, but I do have a question. Any particular reason you've limited the range of allowable discussion in one direction only?

Because the throw weight of um... stict constructionalist... posters in these drug threads already means that it will be virtually impossible to hold a discussion that allows the present drug policy to be defended in its entirity.

At least not without constitutional amendment.

100% current federal policy is out of bounds, as is total laissez faire. (I suppose I could have just said that, but we're not in that thread yet;-)

[unspun]

but every time the obvious & constitutional solution is mentioned: -- -- That of restoring reasonable regulations [not prohibitions] at state/local levels, -- you simply deny that this is acceptable.

Well, I don't think you'll find unanimous agreement on your interpretation of the limitations of state governments, even among more constitutionally strict and substance-liberal posters.

[unspun]

But please feel free.

[tpaine]

"If we could have such a discussion, I might even invite tpaine. Well, afterward, anyway, eh tp?"
-unspun-

How droll.
You claim to want "substantial discussions about pragmatic solutions", but every time the obvious & constitutional solution is mentioned: --
-- That of restoring reasonable regulations [not prohibitions] at state/local levels, -- you simply deny that this is acceptable.
147 tpaine


Well, I don't think you'll find unanimous agreement on your interpretation of the limitations of state governments, even among more constitutionally strict and substance-liberal posters.
"But feel free"

How comical. You've made my point once again.
Do you want pragmatic discussion or unanimous agreement? -- Obviously, in your own words just above, you seek the latter.

Run along now and find someone else to play word games. - Roscoe has vast experience in that silly art.

[A CA Guy]

Those for legalizing pot here are mostly of the drug culture I think to begin with and are using a political party as a way to legalize their stash unspun.
They don't frame the issue as a need to change the method of enforcing the restrictions of illegal drugs, instead they want to open the door to all vices at ones leisure. That in no way seems a conservative trait.

[A CA Guy]

"it is not marijuana use but individuals' opportunities and unique propensities to use drugs that determine their risk of initiating hard drugs."

What a great all inclusive paragraph that shows why there needs to be illegal drug use laws throughout America.

[MrLeRoy]

Those for legalizing pot here are mostly of the drug culture I think to begin with and are using a political party as a way to legalize their stash unspun.

Thanks for the sleazy ad hominem attack---it exposes the emptiness of the Drug Warrior position.

[MrLeRoy]

They claimed it was "self-evident," thus requiring no Scriptural support.

Works for me---it's self-evident that a ruler attempting to usurp an individual's stewardship rights over his own body is not acting as God's servant and need not be obeyed.

[headsonpikes]

Bumping my post #78.

Feel free to accept that post as my initial contribution to your proposed debate.

The so-called WOD is based on a rationale of 'established' knowledge about human nature.

Abandon the scientific pretense and a free-ranging debate about the relation between state and citizen becomes possible. The hysterical response of 'authorities' to the use of 'drugs' is merely one egregious example of the modern statist trend towards 'human resource management'.

See post #78.

All IMNSHO. ;^)

[tacticalogic]

whereas the "A" students would spot the trap and throw it back into the professor's face, thusly:

They claimed it was "self-evident," thus requiring no Scriptural support.

And the professor would throw it right back at them noting that there is nothing that precludes a "self evident truth" from being supported by the scriptures.

[tacticalogic]

Those for legalizing pot here are mostly of the drug culture I think to begin with

At least you recognize and admit your own pre-conceptions. Now you have to realize that as long as you hold on to them, your views are suspect in the context of a rational debate.

[unspun]

Works for me---it's self-evident that a ruler attempting to usurp an individual's stewardship rights over his own body is not acting as God's servant and need not be obeyed.

And using the same pretext of natural law, I'd cite A.Lincoln, that no one has the right to do what is wrong.

That's why we have republican government, not government by tribunal.