Research helps dispel marijuana myths

Sober Talk ^ | Thursday, August 1, 2002 | By BECKY CLARK, MSW, CSW

[JediGirl]

Trying to compare the two is like comparing apples and oranges.

But they do it all the time, don't they?

[tacticalogic]

Why stop there? Any reason not to take it to it's logical conclusion and argue that sloth, gluttony, and vanity should be capital crimes?

[WyldKard]

But they do it all the time, don't they?

If you tell a lie enough times, people might think it truth. Of course, a simple application of Logic 101 usually fixes up these sort of cut and dried comparisons.

[clamper1797]

To brainlessly compare a victimless crime activity, like indulging in pot smoking in the privacy of one's home, to rape and murder is the hallmark of a drug warrior who for whatever reason has his mind made up and does not want to be confused with any DAMNED facts.

[4Freedom]

Tell me why crime didn't go down in The Netherlands?

Tell me where our druggies are going to get all of the other things they like to buy, want to own, need to have?

How many of these druggies will then be allowed to apply for Social Security Disability?

Which JediGirl are you, Tahiri?

[4Freedom]

Did incidents go up as well for the same time period? It's a valid question.

If incidents are up, arrests will go up.

[Scourge of God]

Allow me to start by saying yours is the first intelligent comment on this thread I've seen. You actually have worthwhile points. Not that they win the day, because they don't.

Taking drugs in the privacy of your own home doesn't require you to usurp the inaliable rights of another individual, through force of violence or threats.

OK. Where do you get the drugs, who supplies them? Who suffers when you are inebriated, with impaired physical and mental abilities? Answer: anyone around you suffers. Spouses, children, and total strangers are damaged by your inebriated behavior. Insurance premiums raise as health problems and accidents are caused by those impaired. You know, exactly like alcohol. Unending problems occur when people use inebriating substances.

You CAN'T commit rape or murder or theft, or kidnapping, etc etc etc, without violating the rights of another individual. It just can't be done. Thus, it's in the interest of the state to intervine in any case of rape, or murder, or any crime that usurps the rights of another individual, no matter where it occurs. It is NOT in the interest of the state to spend 10 billion dollars a year to put away some non-violent feb smoking a joint in the privacy of his own living room. Well, unless you have a cushy-Government job...

This is a good point. But there is no such thing as a totally victimless crime. No matter what you do in your own living room, you're still a link in the supply chain of criminals and those who don't care about the law. You're still impairing your mental and physical abilities. You are still a menace, more of a menace than you would be sober.

[JediGirl]

I would direct you to Wolfie's post on the first point.

Tell me where our druggies are going to get all of the other things they like to buy, want to own, need to have?

When drugs are legalised? Probably from businesses. Not corrupt dealers who won't be making much money if they're competing with legitimate businesses.

How many of these druggies will then be allowed to apply for Social Security Disability?

Probably those who would already be applying for Social Security anyway for any given reason.

Which JediGirl are you, Tahiri?

Right. What kind of Freedoms are you really 4, anyway? Those only sanctioned by our best friend, the gubermint?

[JediGirl]

This is a good point. But there is no such thing as a totally victimless crime. No matter what you do in your own living room, you're still a link in the supply chain of criminals and those who don't care about the law. You're still impairing your mental and physical abilities. You are still a menace, more of a menace than you would be sober.

hm...I'm smoking a joint in the bedroom right now. I'm going to go to the store in a little bit. Watch the Simpsons, eat Chinese for dinner. Hm...I fail to see where I'm being a menace yet.

And were drugs legalised, there would be no chain of criminals to which you are a link.

[Scourge of God]

Why stop there? Any reason not to take it to it's logical conclusion and argue that sloth, gluttony, and vanity should be capital crimes?

Actually, let's examine this. We'll take it in stages.

You: "I have a good idea! Let's legalize marijuana! Yeah!"

Me: "Bad idea. Too many social problems, like those from alcohol, will end up being paid for by me."

You: "I know, let's legalize prostitution! Yeah!"

Me: "Sorry, I don't want to live around that, and I don't want my children seeing it."

You: "I know, let's legalize gambling! Yeah!"

Me: "Thanks. Now I have drugs, whores, and gambling everywhere I go. Thanks for turning my city/state into a cesspool."

[JediGirl]

OK. Where do you get the drugs, who supplies them? Who suffers when you are inebriated, with impaired physical and mental abilities? Answer: anyone around you suffers. Spouses, children, and total strangers are damaged by your inebriated behavior. Insurance premiums raise as health problems and accidents are caused by those impaired. You know, exactly like alcohol. Unending problems occur when people use inebriating substances.

If drugs were legalised, businesses. Who suffers when you kick back a bear? All these things happen when someone is on anti-depressants or ritalin.

[headsonpikes]

"You are still a menace..."

You have set the bar fraidy-cat low on what constitutes a menace, I reckon.

You're pretty much of a ribbon clerk, as they say.

BOO!

Did you wet yourself ?

[Scourge of God]

hm...I'm smoking a joint in the bedroom right now. I'm going to go to the store in a little bit. Watch the Simpsons, eat Chinese for dinner. Hm...I fail to see where I'm being a menace yet.

And were drugs legalised, there would be no chain of criminals to which you are a link.

And how are you getting to the store, smart guy? Driving? Gonna run some other person off the road because you are so high you can't react in time to potential accidents? Maybe you'll walk, and end up stepping in front of a mini van, and scarring some poor soul for the rest of your life because they hit you?

Maybe you're on a scooter, and after you drive into a ravine, the state has to spend a few thousand to dig you out, and your parents or your insurance company have to pay for your hospital stay.

And even if drugs were legally purchased, you'd just be creating more skunky millionaires like the Coors family or the Levi bunch.

[Scourge of God]

You have set the bar fraidy-cat low on what constitutes a menace, I reckon. You're pretty much of a ribbon clerk, as they say. BOO! Did you wet yourself ?

Uh, no. But it's reaaaaal brave of you to taunt someone over the internet. Yeah, you are a big man.

[liberallarry]

This thread is about marijuana, its effect, its possible dangers, and the legitimacy or lack thereof of government action.

I've been down this road often enough to recognize garbage when I see it. I was satisfied to point out that the dangers were greatly exagerated and illustrated my point with personal experience. Others posted detailed criticisms of the research which I found perfectly satisfactory.

If you don't have anything of substance to offer then find another thread. If you want to criticize me, see a psychiatrist.

[WyldKard]

OK. Where do you get the drugs, who supplies them? Who suffers when you are inebriated, with impaired physical and mental abilities? Answer: anyone around you suffers. Spouses, children, and total strangers are damaged by your inebriated behavior. Insurance premiums raise as health problems and accidents are caused by those impaired. You know, exactly like alcohol. Unending problems occur when people use inebriating substances.

Yes, but only if they go out and do stuff while inebriated. And those are seperate crimes that are justfully punished. You can be DUI, regardless of intoxication or not. You can kill someone, or murder someone, or rape someone, regardless of intoxication, legal or not. So why not continue to have harsh penalties on real crimes, crimes where one person violates the rights of another, no matter what the circumstances (within reason) and leave the actual act of consumption and possession re-legalized (cause every drug used to be legal, once). Unless you think we should once again criminalize alcohol (and look how well THAT worked), or prescription drugs, or Benadryl,or smoking, or fatty foods. All of these cause more death and lost productivity dollars than illicit drugs. However, you seem to be making the assumption that anyone who, say, smokes pot in their living room is immediately going to go out and commit a crime. I know that probably isn't what you meant, but that's exactly the sort of argument they tried to make in the early 20th Century. In the case of something "soft" like pot, the people who suffer the most are the ones whos life force is directly tied into the national supply of twinkies and doritos :)

You can't legislate morality with any great success. You can't expect most people to do something merely because there is a law for or against it. Morals and ethics begin at home. If parents don't want their kids using intoxicants, they need to teach their kids accordingly. Too many, and I mean WAY TOO MANY parents have no qualms letting the state raise their children for them. They have given up on taking personal responsibility. Most people in this country appear to have. Thats the thing about Socialism..it discourages personal responsibility.

It depends on how much of a Socialist you are going to be. Either you own your own body, or the State does. Which is it for you, then?

This is a good point. But there is no such thing as a totally victimless crime. No matter what you do in your own living room, you're still a link in the supply chain of criminals and those who don't care about the law. You're still impairing your mental and physical abilities. You are still a menace, more of a menace than you would be sober.

Those criminals only exist because of Prohibition. You'll notice all the criminals and gangs formed when Alcohol was criminalized, and you'll notice most of those guys disappeared when it was re-legalized. One idea is to treat marijuana like booze, and have some sort of "harm reduction" prescription for the "hard stuff". That would cut the legs out of a LOT of drug lords, who do NOT want any kind of legalization. They LIKE the Black Market.

Frankly, I am sick of having my taxes sucked out of me at virtual gunpoint, so that we can waste 10-20 billion dollars a year putting non-violent pot smokers in jail. Think of what we could do if we freed up those resources.

[4Freedom]

Crime increased in The Netherlands even though they stopped arresting potheads. Wolfie's post wasn't an answer.

If you believe that the druggies that are stealing now are going to stop stealing to get everything else they want, you're wrong.

You're the one comparing apples and oranges.

If you give the dopers free dope, they still don't have the money for tatoos, body piercings, cars, partying, gangster gear, etc..

So who's your favorite Jedi Girl? Is it Mara, Jaina, Leia, Tahiri???

[WyldKard]

And even if drugs were legally purchased, you'd just be creating more skunky millionaires like the Coors family or the Levi bunch.

And the problem with this is? Do you not like free market Capitalism?

[laredo44]

The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.

I would be very interested in your definition of liberty. Care to share it?

[WyldKard]

Crime increased in The Netherlands even though they stopped arresting potheads

Please post your sources, and a URL to a study I can evaluate. Otherwise, I can say "The moon is made of gold, I tells ya! Gold! GOLD!!!", and it will carry just as much validity. :)