Let’s assume these Huff Post hand wringers are now concerned about Heroin ODs. After all we wouldn’t want to lose some creepy opiate addict, would we? They are so stylish and well recommended.
Might I suggest that marijuana dopers are just killing their lives too, but not dying of overdose, just slip sliding away.
Of course all my doper friends would object to any objection about Maryjuana–after all they do the weed too.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/helena-hansen/drug-overdose-deaths_b_4795110.html
All valid points, as I’ve come to expect from you. For me it’s a question of unintended consequences, and consistent application of law. Cannabinoids have been approved by the FDA. That alone should get Marijuana lowered to a schedule II controlled substance.
The other criterion is that it has the highest potential for abuse. The DEA is claiming that marijuana has a higher potential for abuse than cocaine, meth, or OxyContin. Studies indicate that marijuana has less potential for addiction than caffeine, alcohol, or tobacco. The unwritten implication is that schedule I drugs are the most dangerous yet marijuana has no reasonable risk of death or serious injury from OD. You don’t have to look too hard at the drug classification system to come to the conclusion that special interest politics and crony capitalism have more to do with it than fact. http://www.justice.gov/dea/druginfo/ds.shtml
Alcohol prohibition only worked if you look at a very narrow set of metrics. Prior to the passage of the law there were between 22 and 36 breweries in St Louis, Missouri alone. In one fell swoop prohibition put thousands of law-abiding citizens out of a job and destroyed an entire industry. Family businesses that had been passed down through generations were wiped out. The ripple effect went from barrel makers and truck drivers all the way down to waitresses. This article says more than I can here.
http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/prohibition/unintended-consequences/
According to this NIH article prohibition “worked” but only by narrowing the definition of working to “lowering per capita consumption”. So a minority of people, through misrepresentation and junk science, managed to force their views onto a large number of people. I disagree with that definition of working. For me it’s really a question of whether you believe the federal government has any place imposing moral beliefs or long-term health decisions on the citizens. If you do, then you still must weigh the benefits against the costs.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1470475/
Regardless of minor public health benefits, alcohol prohibition destroyed an entire industry and handed those jobs to professional criminals. I believe that through legalization the opposite is possible. We can destroy the business of criminals and create jobs for honest people. If your goal is to reduce marijuana use, I would point out that regulation and taxation have done more to reduce tobacco use than military troops and strict prison sentencing have done to reduce marijuana use.
My position on this is borne of the balance between the government’s responsibility/natural desire to promote and protect public safety, versus the libertarian (small “L”) rights of the individual. In other words, let’s consider allowing individuals to do what they want, but then also consider whether doing so will result in a real increase in the danger to the non-partaking public (aka, the gross violation of other individuals respective rights).
The actual stats available from the Prohibition Era when it comes to the bad things having to do with alcohol show that Prohibition WORKED to the benefit of public health in all areas where stats are available — and not just for a certain segment of the populace — facts which run quite counter to popular belief. Admittedly, it didn’t actually STOP alcohol use or production either, but it did curtail it significantly, leading to the reduction in negative outcomes to which I refer. However, the ban also did not reduce actual crime rates, partly because new crimes were created by the ban, and partly because at that time — as now — there was much money to be made off of it.
By the end the U.S. had decided that they would rather be drunk than be safe/healthy — or, to put it another way, access to alcohol was recognized by the voting public as being more important than the statistically significant reduction in specifically alcohol-related problems such as addiction, liver disease, deaths, domestic violence incidents, workplace and traffic accidents, &c., ad nauseam. Whether that choice was “right or wrong” depends almost solely upon one’s own morals; I will not debate that aspect here.
But the choice is the same now as it was then: does the potential risk to public health from those who will be granted significantly easier access via legalization and (eventual) commercialization outweigh the individual’s right to poison his or her own self if they so choose? If it does, then alcohol needs to be just as banned as marijuana. If it does not, then there should be NO illegal drugs, ever, of any kind.
Penalize the intoxicated driver at twice the rate of the average manslaughter convict, perhaps. Jail the caretaker of the child who accidentally ingests a pot-laced brownie the same way one would a felony child abuser, absolutely. But consistency demands that whatever we do, something needs to change, one way or the other.
“The same argument has been made about video games, television, and even fictional books. Sometimes the argument holds true, but the sort of person that pursues leisure at the expense of all else isn’t going to change just because you ban one form of leisure.”
WHOA, Whoa, whoa, whoa, there, Mister, why you’ve gotta bring my Dresden Files into this discussion? ~_^
I’m not sure what you’re driving at here. I was writing directly to John1282. Because we have debated a number of times before I’m familiar with his definition of proof. Proof is subjective so yours is likely different. The point I was hoping to make is that the benefits of prohibition when analyzed are not robust enough to support continued financial support. Tell me which study you would like me to critique and I’ll let you know what I feel about its scientific rigor.
Gh05T I have but one question in reference to your question “Is the ongoing cost of enforcing marijuana prohibition worth the proven benefits?”
The “proven benefits”, are they done with the same scientific rigor as all of the “AWG” studies that have proven that CO2 is the current source of “Global Warming, Climate Change” whatever you want to call it? Just asking. I really don’t care either way about the legallity of marijuana.
And then they got older and were shocked that they were dying from nothing at all!
“Most” is still not good enough. Maybe there are some of us out there that actually understand what “illegal” means.
I means cops blasting down front doors and shooting family pets in front of children
It means a massive racial disparity in our Criminal Justice system that cannot be explained away by a few bad actors.
It means the complete disenfranchisement of millions of people, because they choose to relax by taking one chemical among hundreds that have been banned for no objective scientific reason.
I think prohibitionists need to look at 50 years of failure, absolute failure on ever level, and answer that question “What makes you worth listening to at this point?”
And what do you offer? Unsubstantiated hypothetical situations that are completely unsupported by data….as a reason to ruin untold peoples lives (ruin as in, prohibition ruined it, not the drugs themselves).
Did you know that I’m in the military and submit to random drug testing on a regular basis? I also abstain from alcohol and tobacco and I made those decisions all by myself without congressional busy bodies stepping in. The fact that job applicants can be screened by their potential employer is proof that the federal government need not protect us from those dangerous pot heads you’re so scared of. The fact that people are still using marijuana despite millions of tax payer dollars funding a standing army of agents and overcrowded prisons is proof that the policy doesn’t work.
Do you think your “circular argument” comment adds anything to the discussion or that it answers any of my points? I can’t even guess what you’re trying to say by closing with “yea [sic] baby, one toke over the line.” You give me the impression you’re not trying to be taken seriously. You’re too smart to have misunderstood my critique so I’m left with the assumption that you’re simply unwilling to admit that many opponents of the prohibition have come to their conclusions based on sound reasoning and evidence rather than a desire to smoke pot. If you think we are wrong, refute us with evidence rather than opinions.
Try answering the points actually up for debate. Is the ongoing cost of enforcing marijuana prohibition worth the proven benefits? Do the medically proven side effects of marijuana justify its classification as a schedule I controlled substance. If so, is the law consistent in not classifying tobacco and alcohol as schedule I?
From a broader political stand point, should the federal government have the power to ban or restrict a product simply because it’s “bad for you” as opposed to potentially lethal. Where do you draw the line between things that are and are not the federal government’s business?
ok, most of the people who want marijuana legalized are in favor of its legalization. That sound circular enough. And the word stoned is used on purpose. The intoxication of marijuana is smoother and more long lasting and eve hangs on because thc is not metabolized as well and leaks out of the stores.
So you bet i think its different than alcohol and legalizing it certainly will produce more dedicated dopers and pot heads. I would suggest dope is not good for people who have jobs or people involved in intellectual or high performance pursuits.
For example should an airline pilot or a soldier/military pilot be allowed to have thc positive blood? How about blood testing everyone who is in an accident.
did you know that even now drug testing eliminates a significant number of job applicants? yea baby, one toke over the line.
People don’t need marijuana to fritter away their lives. I think you have a correlation vs. causation issue there. The same argument has been made about video games, television, and even fictional books. Sometimes the argument holds true, but the sort of person that pursues leisure at the expense of all else isn’t going to change just because you ban one form of leisure. Even if you could force them to live the kind of life you would prefer they live, do you want to live in a nation with the power to do that? Who gets to decide what constitutes a life worth living or a life wasted?
The “it’ll kill you eventually” argument is the same one used against barbequed meat, egg-yolks, and large sodas. As often as you argue against the nanny state I’m surprised you support prohibition. You cannot force people to make good health choices. Taking away their ability to choose doesn’t make them better people.
Comparing a drug that has no realistic lethal dosage to a drug that can kill a person the first time they try it is only harming your position. It makes you sound like a zealot rather than an informed individual making a rational decision based on evidence.
Again you close your editorial out with the ad hominem attack. Do you honestly believe that every person that argues against prohibition of marijuana only does so because they use it? You cannot simply hand-wave all logical arguments by calling your detractors potheads and expect to be taken seriously.
Somehow smoking cigarettes makes you a vile person who is killing the children with secondhand and invisible now so called ‘thirdhand’ smoke. But smoking pot makes you an enlightened hipster.
I wish they could all be legally tied together as “Big Pot”, so they can be sued into penury when it is “suddenly” found that pot harms your health if used long term.