Posted on 01/03/2019 8:36:53 AM PST by reaganaut1
...
The most obvious way that cannabis fuels violence in psychotic people is through its tendency to cause paranoia. Even marijuana advocates acknowledge that the drug can cause paranoia; the risk is so obvious that users joke about it, and dispensaries advertise certain strains as less likely to do so. But for people with psychotic disorders, paranoia can fuel extreme violence. A 2007 paper in the Medical Journal of Australia looked at 88 defendants who had committed homicide during psychotic episodes. It found that most of the killers believed they were in danger from the victim, and almost two-thirds reported misusing cannabis—more than alcohol and amphetamines combined.
The link between marijuana and violence doesn’t appear limited to people with pre-existing psychosis. Researchers have studied alcohol and violence for generations, proving that alcohol is a risk factor for domestic abuse, assault and even murder. Far less work has been done on marijuana, in part because advocates have stigmatized anyone who raises the issue. Still, there are studies showing that marijuana use is a significant risk factor for violence.
A 2012 paper in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence, examining a federal survey of more than 9,000 adolescents, found that marijuana use was associated with a doubling of domestic violence in the U.S. A 2017 paper in the journal Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, examining drivers of violence among 6,000 British and Chinese men, found that drug use was linked to a fivefold increase in violence, and the drug used was nearly always cannabis.
Before states legalized recreational cannabis, advocates predicted that legalization would let police focus on hardened criminals rather than on marijuana smokers and thus reduce violent crime.
(Excerpt) Read more at wsj.com ...
Actually, my children are grown so I have smoked weed with them. What’s your point since you supposedly have no dog in this fight? No one promotes children using any drugs or alcohol - that’s a drug warrior dog whistle, friend. Nope, my use is not scientific. That was the point of my post. Once things are legal, better studies might be possible.
Today’s typical product is 20+ times stronger than in the 1960s.
2% in the ‘70’s vs 20% - 25% THC, today.
That’s quite a significant increase.
In states where legal, some of the extracts are almost pure.
“What’s your point since you supposedly have no dog in this fight?”
My point is that I know personally some good people who died young, and know of even more, using drugs.
And you, by your own admission, have contributed to an illegal world that is marked by death and destruction to multitudes.
As the cliche has it, you can drink and not get drunk, but you can’t smoke dope without getting high.
Are you going to try to claim that getting high on dope bears no consequence whatsoever?
Who pays for tobacco smokers? Should we ban tobacco?
This thread isn’t about tobacco.
If you don't want to talk about tobacco, don't make anti-pot arguments that equally apply to tobacco.
I was merely pointing out that the topic is marijuana..
Actually, YOU broadened the topic to "any smoke" - see above.
Pointing to other substances that one feels is worse doesn’t negate that there are real issues of concern related to long term recreational use of marijuana.
Two straw men in one sentence: I never claimed that tobacco was "worse" and I didn't "negate" anything nor try to do so; I was merely pointing out that your issue applied to a currently legal substance and therefore had the same logical implications for its legality that it did for marijuana.
Otherwise, I don’t have a problem with someone smoking their brains out ..IF they are an “adult”
And IF other people do not have to pay for any consequences like respiratory issues and the like.
Under current government programs (and insurance policies) other people have to pay for respiratory consequences of tobacco use to the same extent they do for those of marijuana use - so the logical implications must be the same for the proper legal statuses of those substances. So should they both be legal but regulated - or both illegal?
2% in the ‘70’s vs 20% - 25% THC, today.
And liquor is far more potent than beer. In both cases that simply means less volume consumed to reach the desired effect - which in the case of pot is good because it means a lesser volume of harmful smoke.
I included other smoke ..because other posters kept bringing up other than marijuana.
I was saying the topic is not about those things but if others want to keep bringing them up ..than I concede they to are not good.
Likewise, it doesn’t excuse the actual negative issues of marijuana.
Again, the actual topic of discussion.
I never said you, or anyone, can not use marijuana..or whatever.
just that if you do..
ACCEPT the consequences.
That is at the heart of libertarianism,right?
You have the right to do almost anything you want as long as it doesn’t harm someone else.
That includes not making other people pay for any consequences of one’s choices,right?
Many die young from the consequences of drinking - but we've rightly decided that banning alcohol is not the answer.
And you, by your own admission, have contributed to an illegal world that is marked by death and destruction to multitudes.
As have those who support the criminalization of non-rights-violating marijuana growing, sale, and use.
As the cliche has it, you can drink and not get drunk, but you can’t smoke dope without getting high.
If one drinks more than a ceremonial sip of a wine toast, one probably experiences relaxation - which is all many uses of pot are intended to do. Any distinction there is far to thin a reed on which to hang the regulated legality of one versus the complete illegality of the other.
Are you going to try to claim that getting high on dope bears no consequence whatsoever?
What a silly straw man - using alcohol, tobacco, or bacon double cheeseburgers do not "bear no consequence whatsoever".
Those remain merely your straw men: nobody ever said nor implied that you think tobacco is good, nor that it "excuses" anything.
The point is that if one makes arguments regarding marijuana that also apply to tobacco, others are entitled to explore their application to tobacco - and do NOT thereby deviate from "the actual topic of discussion."
I never said you, or anyone, can not use marijuana..or whatever.
just that if you do..
ACCEPT the consequences.
That is at the heart of libertarianism,right?
You have the right to do almost anything you want as long as it doesn’t harm someone else.
That includes not making other people pay for any consequences of one’s choices,right?
No libertarian supports making other people pay for any consequences of one’s choices, nor do I; they and I oppose government programs that do so.
It would be anti-liberty to say that because such programs exist, marijuana or tobacco ought to be banned.
We agree.. marijuana should not be banned.
You miss understand me completely.
I care not a bit if you smoke dope. Go ahead, knock yourself out.
I just resent people like you corrupting the young.
Do you think marijuana should be legalized?
I am Conservative and smoke.
NO it should not be legalized.
I smoke in the privacy of my home ONLY.
I never drive under the influence EVER.
I think legalization will effect our society as a whole in a bad way.
Its what the liberals want. The Dumbing down of America
So you're saying it should be legal for me to do so? (Not that I do.) And for those who want to grow it and sell it to me to do that?
I just resent people like you corrupting the young.
How am I corrupting the young? If anything, it's criminalization-for-all that corrupts youth, by putting the marijuana market in the hands of those with no compunction about selling to youth.
I smoke in the privacy of my home ONLY.
I never drive under the influence EVER.
Should you remain subject to arrest as you currently are?
OK, blame it on the weed. I’ve lost the bubble on this thread. Are we really disagreeing here or agreeing? Are we really arguing that the government needs to retain power over individuals on this issue? With a corrupt FBI, IRS, House, Senate and more? With illegal people crawling all over the country under the cover of a corrupt judiciary? And we want the government to continue to use marijuana arrests to strip citizens of their possessions? Like I said, is there really a yuge disagreement here?
odawg gave every appearance of so arguing - against you and I - but seems to sing a different tune in post #211. Stay tuned.
Should you remain subject to arrest as you currently are?
This is why I love Free Republic!!
Thanks
LeonardFMason, that doesn't sound like "no harm" to me.
There’s also their habit of fishing for fault in people who argue against smoking weed. They try to go on the offense.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.