Reefer Madness? No, really.

[bhodi]

There are a lot of people draining funds and not contributing to society that are entrenched in prison...

[Triforcer]

I'm not arguing that as a social utilitarian matter, we are better off with pot illegal than with it legal.  I'm just saying that pot legalization arguments based on alcohol and tobacco are strawmen/logically flawed.  The pot debate should stand on its own merits, not on shrill screeching that "ALCOHOL AND TOBACCO ARE WORSE, YOU ARE THUS HYPROCRITES FOR POINTING OUT WAYS IN WHICH POT IS BAD". 

[bhodi]

No, you are totally correct on that point. I got it, but I couldn't resist a snarky comment. I'll stop now, since I've already said my spiel on this, and it's in the den. Thanks geld. Asshole.

[Nebu]

I think that some of us would argue that we should let people kill themselves with benign substances in the privacy of their own home if they wish to do so.  I see no reason for marijuana to be illegal.  Junk food has more deleterious effect on our society than pot.  

The war on drugs is as big a waste of resources as the war on terror.  Make the lesser evils into a cash crop and use the money to aid those trying to better themselves.  It's a win-win scenario.   People are going to do drugs whether they are illegal or not.  If they are legal, you can build a lower cost infrastructure for coping with addiction while reducing societal costs and stygma.  The solution is so clear that it astounds me why more people aren't brave enough to admit that substance prohibition just doesn't work.  

[Damn Dirty Ape]

Why Triforcer didn't also include sleep deprivation and Guitar Hero in his rants is beyond me.  I thought the two made teh funney in my post.

[Samwise]

The costs of banning alcohol or tobacco NOW may be too high, even if we should have banned them from the beginning.  Similarly, the cost of allowing pot NOW may be too high, even if in the first instance we should have allowed it.

I can see where you're coming from with the first part (although I'm not sure I agree with it, at least not at the national level), but not the second.  If we should have allowed pot from the beginning, what's the "cost" of allowing it now?

[Ironwood]

I love Sams Boobs.

[angry.bob]

I can see where you're coming from with the first part (although I'm not sure I agree with it, at least not at the national level), but not the second.  If we should have allowed pot from the beginning, what's the "cost" of allowing it now?

People will switch from the first two over to the third and impact large corporations negatively. After all - most people will be able to easily supply themselves rather than have to buy it.

[HaemishM]

A simpler way to put it:  Saying pot is "just as bad" as alcohol or tobacco may mean we screwed up on allowing alcohol and tobacco.  But why does that mistake mean we have to throw up our hands now and open the floodgates to all bad things?

Because like alcohol, pot isn't necessarily BAD BAD BAD. The Bacchus myth is a pretty clear allegory from history teaching that alcohol isn't bad in moderation. The fact that both beer and wine in small daily quantities actually reduces the chances of heart disease shows that alcohol isn't all bad when used intelligently. Pot has some medical applications for treating pain without more serious pharmaceutical side effects.

Legislating laws purely on black and white, mixed with an unhealthy dose of competitive lobbying by monied interests, IS BAD.

[Merusk]

Political stances aside for a moment:

Those of you decrying the study as, "omg they have an agenda, pot is A-OK and doesn't do any of that!" aren't remembering the discussion we had about Alcohol & its effect on certain people.  I think it was Stray that has that friend with the condition where even a little of the juice turns him into a raging, violent assbag.  This study seems to be saying, "Hay.. pot can do that to some people, too. Interesting."   The article didn't say, "OMG REEFER MADNESS, POT MUST STAY ILLEGAL 4tCHILDRENS"

It's what's done with the results that are politic, not the results themselves. Right? K.  Back to your usual corners, come out swinging again.

[bhodi]

OK, I lied. I'm back. Some comments on that story.

I know you'll be shocked, but that headline was misleading! I know, I know. Some choice bits from that:

Quick Psych 101: Psychology is only useful for broad, sweeping statements and we don't have a true understanding of all aspects of the brain or how they work, let alone how drugs interact with it (note: Not talking out of my ass; I have a Psych degree and recently had a great conversation with a neuroscientist on this exact topic).

From the article: the two main active components of marijuana are cannabidiol (CBD) and tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). CBD produces a calming effect. THC is associated with the paranoia, euphoria.

There are upwards of 300 active compounds in marijuana. This study took the two most abundant (THC and CBD), and looked to see where the brain was affected. Because of anti-drug taboos, these studies are almost always conducted with synthesized THC. And an MRI will give you an image of activity or inactivity, but - as already mentioned - we don't know all the details of activity in certain areas of the brain.

To sum up: Doctors treated patients with a synthesis of a compound known to cause mild paranoia. They then put their patients in this machine [mri imager] and reported that the brain scan showed affected areas related to paranoia. No shit.

I am not trying to slam the study. The media and its fervor, however, can go take a flying fuck at a rolling donut on this one. Reuters has this article titled "Brain scans pinpoint cannabis health risk." But they didn't. The brain scans show activity or inactivity of the brain, and and the implications affect mental health outlook, while "health" implies physical health or brain damage. First sentence: "Brain scans showing how cannabis affects brain function...." Hold it right there. Function is not measured but by behavior. See previous explanation of what is being measured.

    "It's no longer a contentious issue. The expert community, by and large, accepts that cannabis contributes to the onset of psychotic symptoms in general and the severe form of psychosis, schizophrenia," [Professor Robin Murray, conference organizer] said.

Wrong. That sounds like the "Weed makes you crazy" defense. Dr. Zerrin Atakan, author of the study, was found to be an astute, reasonable human being completely void of the sensationalism that would follow a story like this. He was quoted in the Telegraph in 2004 as saying:

    Cannabis psychosis is a very vague term. If we ever use the phrase, it is only to describe very short-term effects immediately following smoking, and it certainly doesn't refer to users having a psychotic disorder. People may feel frightened or paranoid, but these feelings pass in a matter of hours or, more rarely, days, and practically never require treatment.

He even laid out some very lucid guidelines in a message to the 2005 Cannabis Education March & Rally, telling everyone to make up their own mind about marijuana, but hitting on some basic facts about smoking before your brain is done growing, smoking if you have mental illness, or smoking every day. Very understanding and well-understood.

[Sky]

I really want to reply to this, but I can't without becoming more of an asshole than I'm comfortable with.

I'm just happy so many people are out there looking out for my fucking safety. Apparently I'm not to be trusted to make my own decisions.

[HaemishM]

This study seems to be saying, "Hay.. pot can do that to some people, too. Interesting."   The article didn't say, "OMG REEFER MADNESS, POT MUST STAY ILLEGAL 4tCHILDRENS"

That's not the problem. This study is a joke because even a raging Internet asshole like myself knows that 15 people is not an adequate sample size for a serious study, unless 15 people is the total number of people the study subject could possibly affect in the entire world.

[Merusk]

Fucking-a lost my reply.

Anyway.. 15 folks is ok if you're just trying to find "does x cause y in anyone?".  They found it did, and now can go to "How many folks" or - as implied in the article - "Why?"   Or are you going to tell me that 15 people isn't enough to discover that poking them in the eye is painful?

The problem most of you are having is what OTHER folks are doing with the study. As bhodi pointed out, the guy who did the study actually seems ok with folks smoking pot.

  It's other idiots causing the problems by twisting his words. That's shit you just can't fucking resolve, regardless of the issue.  There's idiots out there explaining that all Muslims must die because they're all dangerous and want to drink your baby's blood.  Education is the only counter.  Saying that it's bad science because - omg pot DOES have some side-effects - is fucking silly.  It's fundie thought process from the left rather than the right.

[HaemishM]

It's bad science because it tells me things any person even vaguely knowledgeable about pot already knows, and does so with such a small sample size that it creates no new data. It's just like studying whether poking 15 people in the eye is painful because of course it is. Spend your study money on figuring out WHY it's painful (or dope causes pyschosis in some), what the triggers are, what other mitigating factors are involved. In other words, do a big boy study with good sample sizes, because politically-minded fucktards will take your anecdotal study and read it to the uninformed masses as gospel.

[Merusk]

Anecdotal evidence is not scientific evidence.  He likely couldn't get funding for the "Why" until he had the "Yep, it actually does."  As mentioned, he's looking off into the "Why" now.

[Murgos]

It's bad science because it tells me things any person even vaguely knowledgeable about pot already knows...

I think the early parts of this thread deny your statement in full.

[Sky]

I'm not arguing that as a social utilitarian matter, we are better off with pot illegal than with it legal.  I'm just saying that pot legalization arguments based on alcohol and tobacco are strawmen/logically flawed.  The pot debate should stand on its own merits, not on shrill screeching that "ALCOHOL AND TOBACCO ARE WORSE, YOU ARE THUS HYPROCRITES FOR POINTING OUT WAYS IN WHICH POT IS BAD". 

Sorry, I have to comment on this one, though.

The point of that particular tactic is to point out that many federal legislators partake in one or both alcohol and tobacco, despite any health risk or negative consequences from misuse. Because most adults should be allowed to be responsible and make those decisions for themselves. No responsible person wants people driving drunk, wants kids drinking alcohol. We don't make alcohol illegal because of that, we don't lock up liquor store owners.

The pot debate is a sham. There is no debate, it's being legislated by a class of people who largely don't give a shit because their recreational drug of choice is already legal. I don't need /any/ studies, I don't need to prove shit to anyone. Regulate it, tax it, sell it. Period. If you don't like it, don't buy it, same as a bottle of whisky. In return, I won't smoke a bong and jump behind the wheel. It's how adults act. It's the way America is supposed to be, or at least was supposed to be....mind your own fucking business and get off my fucking lawn.

[Furiously]

We might be treading into the realm of politics here.

So - honest question regarding legalization of pot. (I'm going to apply the standard we apply to alcohol).

Is someone high a danger to themselves and others if they get behind the wheel of a car? Is there a good method for testing if someone is high if they do get behind a wheel of a car?

[Damn Dirty Ape]

I think the early parts of this thread deny your statement in full.

And invoking propaganda such as Reefer Madness wasn't hyperbolic on your part?  Pot, kettle, and all that.

[Sky]

We might be treading into the realm of politics here.

Is someone high a danger to themselves and others if they get behind the wheel of a car? Is there a good method for testing if someone is high if they do get behind a wheel of a car?

Yeah, sorry for carrying it over into politics. Touchy subject and I used to be an activist for marijuana law reforms back in the 80s.

Yes, it's not a great idea to smoke and drive. I have (I've also driven drunk way too much, but don't anymore). Thing is, it's very subjective (as far as your reaction to marijuana, your ability to focus, etc). But no, it's not a good idea in general and I don't at all recommend messing around like that, as with alcohol, you might be ok and might not have problems, but it's only a matter of time, and it's definitely irresponsible.

Testing is tough. Afaik, testing for marijuana will only show general usage over a period of months, which is why it's an awful idea to drug test your employees without direct evidence they're high on the job (which I am also against!). I once sent home a guy from walmart for being high...and went to his house and smoked with him after work. You just shouldn't smoke on the job imo. But there's no good  way to isolate recent usage enough to be useful, no way to measure your intoxication as you can with alcohol, outside sobriety tests in general.

Good point.

[Murgos]

I think the early parts of this thread deny your statement in full.

And invoking propaganda such as Reefer Madness wasn't hyperbolic on your part?  Pot, kettle, and all that.

One was hyperbole to attract attention and the other was hyperbole as partial proof of an argument on a course of action.  Surely you can tell the difference?

[Damn Dirty Ape]

Not a big enough difference to warrant your "you guys are teh mean!  Why aren't you taking this seriously?" comments.  Enjoy the posts for what they are:  lame jokes and exasperation at decades of blatant misinformation.

[Murgos]

Enjoy the posts for what they are:  lame jokes and exasperation at decades of blatant misinformation.

Reefer madness was released in 1936, the decades of blatant misinformation has slipped far to the other side at this point.  For example, admitted pot-heads who refuse to believe that there could possibly be negative effects from inhaling marijuana.

[Damn Dirty Ape]

Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

[Ironwood]

Heh.

[Triforcer]

The greatest anti-drug source ever:

http://www.thewavemag.com/pagegen.php?pagename=article&articleid=22906

And to whoever asked about danger from getting behind the wheel of a car while high:  this answers your question.  Apparently you will drive your car purposefully off a high cliff, laughing hysterically about how awesome it is all the while.

[Sky]

For example, admitted pot-heads who refuse to believe that there could possibly be negative effects from inhaling marijuana.

[Signe]

I don't inhale.  Ever.

[Lantyssa]

You're anaerobic?

[Furiously]

Or maybe a Zombie.... Righ, don't let her near your BRAAAAAAINNNNNSSSSS!

[Signe]

You're anaerobic?

I used to be, but now I'm all about the jazzercise. 

PS  If I wanted Righ's brain, I could have had it any time over the last 13 years or so, but I married him for his money!