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

[unspun]

My sentiments are with you, hop. Hope to respond, 'ere long.

[unspun]

This thread isn't about what percentage of users of marijuana become more frequent users or addicted users of marijuana.

[unspun]

(by the way, the drugs weere mostly used because of injuries).

This all means it's likely you don't fit the profile refered to in the article.

[unspun]

This thread isn't about what percentage of users of marijuana become more frequent users or addicted users of marijuana.

[MrLeRoy]

This thread isn't about what percentage of users of marijuana become more frequent users or addicted users of marijuana.

It's not about how addictive crack or heroin is, either; I trust you'll be complaining to Republic of Texas.

[headsonpikes]

blush ;^)

[rb22982]

This thread is about marijuana and why it should or shouldn't be illegal, therefore it is relevent. Moreover, I was responding to someone anyway so you shouldn't direct that comment at me in the first place.

[rb22982]

very nice post

[monkey]

I.e., either way you slice it, if intoxicants including marijuana are more freely available, they will simply add to the use of hard drugs, among those who are so inclined.

That's not what the study says. How did you reach that conclusion?

[Hebrews 11:6]

The Meek SHALL NOT Inherit the Earth, IMHO

Then your beef, friend, is with Jesus, not with me.

[Hebrews 11:6]

so I must ask you, what is the point of your paranoia?

I'm not paranoid, friend. My point is simply that using these drugs is illegal. Therefore, anyone using them is committing a crime. Got it?

[tpaine]

IMO, communities of people have always expected their members to adhere to certain behaviors, and to avoid others. Adherence to these various communal mores are not objectionable to me, at all. If the good folks of Hooterville despise the consumption of red meat, for instance, then Hooterville can decline to issue business licenses to butchers; if I think that's stupid, I can leave town.
-HoP-

Exactly, the Hooterville majority can 'regulate' the offensive [to them] practice of butchering/ selling/consuming red meat in public. -- But they cannot prohibit or criminalize this foul practice in the privacy of the home.
- This would violate our inalienable right to eat what we wish.

Thanks for a great essay. I think you should come up with a controversial title, and post it to a thread of its own.

[Hebrews 11:6]

If you think that exceeding posted speed limits suggests a tendency toward criminal activity...
Exceeding posted speed limits is criminal activity.

Not all laws are inherently good.
I agree completely. I come at this, if you're interested, from a Biblical perspective. Romans 13 commands Christians to obey the civil authorities, who derive their authority from God. Therefore, the default position is to obey. Other Scriptures add that where there is a conflict between their civil law and God's law, then that is an inherently un-good law, and we must instead obey God's law.

[tacticalogic]

Unfortunately, this doesn't address what should be done when civil law is in conflict with itself.

[Hebrews 11:6]

DFW, I take it, is Dallas-Fort Worth? I drive 120 miles daily in L.A., so I know something about staying alive on the freeway--and I do drive the speed limit. Try it, you'll like it! By the way, I don't believe for a moment that driving the speed limit breaks a law against impeding traffic.

With respect to your challenge about living in a country where owning a Bible is illegal--you've oversimplified it. Christians are commanded by that Bible (Romans 13) to obey the civil laws, because the civil authorities derive their authority from God. But that same Bible also makes clear that where the civil law contradicts God's law, we are to obey God's law instead. Doing so may subject us to paying the penalty in that society for breaking its laws, as millions of Christians have knowingly chosen to do.

[MrLeRoy]

where the civil law contradicts God's law, we are to obey God's law instead. Doing so may subject us to paying the penalty in that society for breaking its laws

But will it incline us to break other laws?

[MrLeRoy]

Romans 13 commands Christians to obey the civil authorities, who derive their authority from God. Therefore, the default position is to obey. Other Scriptures add that where there is a conflict between their civil law and God's law, then that is an inherently un-good law, and we must instead obey God's law.

That's one way of reconciling Romans 13 with those other passages; another is to conclude that a Christian must discern whether the government is acting as "God's servant" in any particular case and obey only if it is.

[Hebrews 11:6]

...a Christian must discern whether the government is acting as "God's servant" in any particular case and obey only if it is.

That might be a reasonable conclusion but for these objections:
1. It would be too complicated and wearisome to decide every time; there are enough occasions where we must decide without going through that arduous process in each instance. I am saying that, practically, no one could actually live that way and still function normally.
2. The mandate in Romans 13 is pretty strong. It says "Obey," not "think about it first." In other words, taking Scripture as a whole--as we're obliged to do--the sense I get is that we're to Romans 13 but watch out for exceptions, rather than Romans 13 and watch out for exceptions.

[Hebrews 11:6]

Unfortunately, this doesn't address what should be done when civil law is in conflict with itself.

And your point is?

[MrLeRoy]

1. It would be too complicated and wearisome to decide every time; there are enough occasions where we must decide without going through that arduous process in each instance. I am saying that, practically, no one could actually live that way and still function normally.

Why would the process be arduous every time?

2. The mandate in Romans 13 is pretty strong. It says "Obey," not "think about it first." In other words, taking Scripture as a whole--as we're obliged to do--the sense I get is that we're to Romans 13 but watch out for exceptions, rather than Romans 13 and watch out for exceptions.

Almost everything in the Bible is pretty strong.

An interesting question was raised in another thread: in light of your interpretation of Romans 13, was our revolting against Great Britain a Christian act?