Post #367,792
12/12/12 11:12:14 PM
|
You talking to me?
:-)
We all do balance of harm calculations every day. I'm not going to be changing my behavior any time soon.
My job isn't to write the laws or regulations. I don't have the time nor expertise to present a strong enough case to get you to change your mind or modify your position. It's academic for me at the moment.
Similarly, I'm upset by various other injustices in my state and country. I can't push learning more about marijuana pharmacology and drug laws up above the other things.
It's an interesting discussion, and I appreciate your thoughts and participation, but you're not going to win. :-)
Have fun.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #367,798
12/13/12 5:56:35 AM
|
I didn't say it was your job
And you certainly don't have to make a commitment to work for anything.
But you have no goals, you have questions.
And your questions will probably not be answered in your lifetime. Your questions are primarily long term harm compared to the short term cost, but since the immediate harm is not on your doorstep, it isn't worth your time, and costs are not just dollars, so there are subjective measurements involved.
Until then, it is unprovable accusations. Any time I try to focus on a specific thing, and provide safer usage and alternatives to the ASSUMED harmful methods, you respond with a shitload of open questions, and no preferred direction for me to work with.
Your questions seem to have nothing (or very little) to do with a person's behavior while under the influence, more along the long term health costs.
Remove ALL smoking from the equation. Vaporizer only. Portable. Joints, pipes, bongs not used. Poof, most of your ASSUMED health issues disappear.
|
Post #367,800
12/13/12 8:37:05 AM
|
And how would that work, exactly?
Law: "Pot is legal to consume if you use a vaporizer. If not, it's illegal due to the health risk to you and those around you."
Stoner#1: "Man, that's messed up. I don't like vaporizers. It mellows my harsh."
And so, Stoner#1 ends up in the same position as now - breaking the law. How would your proposal be a solution?
I think I've outlined several of my concerns. You view them differently - that's fine. Whether they're resolved in my lifetime is immaterial to the discussion, isn't it?
But you have no goals, you have questions.
Again, I want rational, sensible policy. In my mind, the details of that policy are not clear and I think need to be reasonably clear before radical changes are made.
Remember how things used to be before Sen. Harkin and others decided that the FDA had no business regulating "herbal supplements"? Do you see the differences between then and now? We're bombarded with ads for "5 Hour Energy" and "Vitamins" and so forth that make all sorts of wild claims about "helps promote XYZ health" while at the same time there's the ubiquitous 2 point text "these claims have not been evaluated by the FDA. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat or cure any disease." What do you suppose the marketplace would be like if pot were handled the same way?
Yes, more questions. But questions in service of the goal of finding a rational, sensible policy.
We seem to be talking past each other, so I'll quit now.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #367,802
12/13/12 9:42:31 AM
|
Easy
At that point you can treat the actual issue, not the substance.
Alcohol is illegal to inhale in some areas. Not others.
http://en.wikipedia....ol_without_liquid
The delivery mechanism is what makes it illegal.
We already live in a world with many laws like that.
My flavored rolling papers are illegal if they are sold with tobacco. Federal level. But it is not illegal when sold alone, or with "legal" herbs which can kill you.
Buy any can of paint or solvent and you will see it various illegal uses.
Oh well.
|
Post #367,803
12/13/12 10:14:13 AM
|
View it from the other side
Imagine there were no existing laws against marijuana. On what basis would you make it illegal? It may cause unquantified harm to some people when consumed via some delivery mechanisms? That's not enough to ban something. That makes the existing ban a bad law, which should be repealed.
IMO it's the people trying to restrict other people's actions who have the burden of proof.
--
Drew
|
Post #367,805
12/13/12 10:56:45 AM
|
Thought experiments are easy.
I'm sympathetic to the "minimal laws and no more" viewpoint - I really am.
But like it or not, we live in a complicated society. Substances which are addictive (to some substantial fraction of the population), which interfere with judgement, motor control, etc., are different from others. They can destroy societies (and not just because they're illegal - look at the history of opium in China - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars )
It never hurts to ask the question "cui bono?" and see where things lead. Some consequences are easier to foresee than others.
We tried "no laws against marijuana". Similarly with cocaine. Heroin was developed and touted as a safer, non-addictive alternative to morphine - http://en.wikipedia....ki/Heroin#History . There are good (and bad) reasons why we have the drug laws we do - they didn't popup out of no where.
IMO it's the people trying to restrict other people's actions who have the burden of proof.
Logically, maybe. But practically, no. Practically, you have to convince enough legislators and the federal/state executive and the courts that you are right to demand changes. That means addressing their interests and concerns.
FWIW.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #367,806
12/13/12 10:59:57 AM
|
That's a crock
You are comparing heroin to cannabis on addiction potential and lethality.
Wow. No point in discussing, if you pull that type of false equivalence.
$respect--;
|
Post #367,807
12/13/12 11:10:05 AM
|
Read me in my posts.
Your persecution complex on this topic is getting in the way of your understanding.
For some people, MJ is addictive (whether psychologically or physically, it doesn't much matter).
For some people, heroin or crack is something they can take or leave and they'll never be addicted with casual usage.
The underlying issue is the same: There are some substances that cause reduction in motor control, blurring of judgement, and in come cases, addiction. They're not like jellybeans.
You have acknowledged that (at least in part).
We (MM and I) don't fully accept the picture that you're painting, and you seemingly don't accept that there are issues that need to be addressed before legalization is considered.
If that's the case, it's a stalemate and as you say, there's no point in continuing.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #367,808
12/13/12 12:07:37 PM
|
But the statement is wrong
ALL people who use opiate based narcotics of heroin strength for more than 2 weeks WILL become addicted. No choice. You find a random outlier, it won't matter. This is pretty much a 100% of the population.
A LARGE percentage of them who dabble with it over time WILL become addicted.
Physical, with serious (but rarely fatal) withdrawel symptom. People go nuts during that phase, and the crime rate of this population will definitively jump as they steal for their next fix.
For those that dabble and/or are addicted to opiate based narcotics, they have a decent likelyhood of screwing up their dose and are playing with death, directly, on every injection and crushed oxycontin. I have at least 1/2 a dozen cousin level reltaives that have died via a variety of narcotics. We can all be pretty sure the lethality of random dozing is unknown, but significant.
Cannabis has no lethal dose that a mere mortal can consume by smoking. If someone is playing with concentrated extracts, I'm sure they can hit it sooner or later. Like any other random concentrated substance, you need to be careful with it at that point. Like cinnamon. Like don't consume enough for 10,000 doses, you will be unhappy. Probably won't kill you, but you will be unhappy for a few hours.
No one has EVER died from THC overdose.
While any mood altering substance can be addictive (jelly beans, pistacios, alcohol, cough syrup) we typically limit the attempt of controlling the individual at the point that addiction causes harm, while allowing all access to most substances, as long as they haven't proven dangerous.
This is flipped on cannabis, with a huge amount of assumptions that need to be disproven, which is much more difficult and sometimes impossible.
Why is it up to those in jail to prove this?
Because their cultural method of relaxation pissed the gringoes off, and we are suffering for it this many years later? Because the jazz musicians scared the high class assholes? Because Dupont didn't not want hemp oil competing with petroleum based oil?
Why is it up to the persecuted (when you are threatening to put someone in jail for behavior that does not affect you (at least no more than people buying alcohol and cough syrup) that you don't like, that's persecuting)?
Not up you to accept. But I always want to know why, because why I may not agree with you on a subject, you are at least well read enough to see multiple sides and gather info on it. Demographics will win no matter what, it WILL be legal, it'll just take a while.
I just will correct bullshit on the subject when I see it, and false equivalences is a major bullshit item.
|
Post #367,809
12/13/12 12:25:55 PM
|
Different part of the issue
Yes, the practical reality is that legislators would need to be convinced before anything changes. But shouldn't we try to establish some objective facts about the drug itself before deciding what to do about it?
That's where I'm coming from WRT effects, side-effects, addiction, etc. There is plenty of recent research -- granted, much of it conducted outside the U.S. -- showing that marijuana has fewer and milder direct health consequences compared to both tobacco and alcohol, addiction rates nowhere close to the other substances you compared to, intoxicating effects milder than alcohol, and numerous profound positive effects.
As long as people continue denying those facts, or (more commonly) denying that those facts have been sufficiently proven, it's not possible to discuss what laws are needed.
--
Drew
|
