social costs of pot vs. alcohol/tobacco

[hifigator]

I made the statement on another thread that alcohol and tobacco negatively impact society far more than marijuana.

Given that the first two are legal, while the last is not, my statement is relatively intuitive. But I think that even legalized marijuana would not have social costs nearly to the degree of aclohol and tabacco.

Do you all agree or not?

In the case of alcohol, obviously the greatest social costs are associated with DUI. Damage, injuries and death attributed to DUI is astronomical and is the #1 cause of death among young people. Additionally alcohol has caused many other problems from broken families to drunken and disorderly outbursts.

Tobacco has similar types of costs on society as the primary cause of lung cancer, which too is one of the leading causes of early death.

I just don't see similar expenses associated with marijuana use.

DUI can and would apply to marijuana use as well, but the correlation between mj use and the loss of motor skills is not as obvious. Some people would certainly be bad and dangerous drivers after some weed, but not all. Due to the calming effect, many would be more lethargic and simply put drive slower. You could argue that it could help reduce road rage as well. Trust me when I tell you that I know several people that you don't want driving if they haven't had a bong hit or two.

I don't want to get too far off topic though. What social costs do you see associated with the legalization of pot and how dramatic do you think they would be?

[Deleted]

I don't give a crap about pot. Defend the social costs of all of the listed infractions here:

sportsyenta.blogspot.com/2007/06/university-of-florida-new-miami.html

[hoyatables]

hifigator said:

I made the statement on another thread that alcohol and tobacco negatively impact society far more than marijuana.

Given that the first two are legal, while the last is not, my statement is relatively intuitive. But I think that even legalized marijuana would not have social costs nearly to the degree of aclohol and tabacco.

Do you all agree or not?

In the case of alcohol, obviously the greatest social costs are associated with DUI. Damage, injuries and death attributed to DUI is astronomical and is the #1 cause of death among young people. Additionally alcohol has caused many other problems from broken families to drunken and disorderly outbursts.

Tobacco has similar types of costs on society as the primary cause of lung cancer, which too is one of the leading causes of early death.

I just don't see similar expenses associated with marijuana use.

DUI can and would apply to marijuana use as well, but the correlation between mj use and the loss of motor skills is not as obvious. Some people would certainly be bad and dangerous drivers after some weed, but not all. Due to the calming effect, many would be more lethargic and simply put drive slower. You could argue that it could help reduce road rage as well. Trust me when I tell you that I know several people that you don't want driving if they haven't had a bong hit or two.

I don't want to get too far off topic though. What social costs do you see associated with the legalization of pot and how dramatic do you think they would be?

So you are arguing that, in sum, the social costs of alcohol and tobacco exceed those of marijuana simply because the first two are legal (and, you presume, more widely used) while the third is illegal and used less. Underlying your argument (carried over from another thread) is that the strict enforcement of anti-marijuana laws is questionable because it doesn't have as much of a social cost as the aforementioned "legal" activities. What underlines this claim? I'd like to see some real data, not just a "let me list all the bad things that booze and smokes cause and then dismiss marijuana use with a couple of jokes suggesting that it would actually be a good idea for people to drive while high."


Also, what you fail to consider is what the marginal social cost of marijuana use is versus alcohol and tobacco, which likely explains in part (though admittedly not completely (a) why marijuana is illegal and alcohol and tobacco are not and (b) why marijuana laws are enforced. That was my original point -- taken on an incremental basis, do the social costs of marijuana use outweigh the incremental social costs of alcohol or drug use? You dismiss the social costs as merely "appetite" and "apathy." Do you really believe that to be true? That's like arguing the only real social costs of tobacco use are smelling bad, or the only real social costs of alcohol use are slurred speech. All three are addictive substances that alter body chemistry and, in large doses, can have long-term effects that every teacher, health official, scientist, and parent I've ever known agrees are harmful to the human body.

Given that marijuana is illegal, I think the burden is to provide that it does not impose social costs that outweigh its benefits (and/or human free will to choose to use the substance) in the absolute. I don't agree with your comparative approach at all--it allows for the value/cost evaluation of marijuana to rely on whether the value/cost evaluation of alcohol and tobacco was properly calculated. That type of relativity is dangerous and is a very slippery slope. Alternately, using your logic, alcohol and tobacco use should be illegal because they have higher social costs.


Finally, you ignore the efforts that are undertaken to mitigate the social costs of alcohol and tobacco use. While individuals are arrested for merely having a "joint or two", many individuals are also arrested and prosecuted for merely having a "drink or two." So I also take issue with your allegation that it is somehow not worth the time to arrest someone for marijuana use. If the enforcement officials adapted your strategy to alcohol use, then wouldn't the social costs of alcohol use increase? Isn't enforcement worth it, given those high social costs?

[HometownHoya]

I don't really want to argue the social costs too much, it is difficult to compare the three because two are legal and one is illegal.

I'm sure that if marijuana was legalized, there would of course be adverse affects in excessive use (as is true with anything) but personally I believe that there would only be a few adverse affects with just minimal use (1/5 users experience great deal anxiety, forgetfulness, laziness, distorted perception, trouble with concentration, paranoia, increased heart rate, and sensory confusion). The lethal dose of mj for a 165 man is inhaling about 21 grams of high potency (15% THC) (while most THC you can find on the market is about 6% iirc) in one sitting. There have been no proven cases of OD as a result of THC alone and it is practically impossible because the user would probably fall asleep first. Marijuana is a psychologically addictive drug, not physically, but withdrawal symptoms are similar in magnitude and time-course as the tobacco withdrawal syndrome. Marijuana does not increase your risk of lung cancer or head and neck cancers (jaw, throat, etc.)Marijuana is known to act on the brain and impair short term memory and attention for the duration of its affects and sometimes the next day. Also, Cannabis use is generally higher among sufferers of schizophrenia, but the causality between the two has not been established

The American Marijuana Policy Project states that cannabis is an ideal therapeutic drug for cancer and AIDS patients, who often suffer from clinical depression, and from nausea and resulting weight loss due to chemotherapy and other aggressive treatments. It is claimed that cannabis makes these other treatments more tolerable. The nausea suppression and mild analgesic effects of cannabis also provide a degree of relief for persons suffering from motion sickness, and it can also be used by hyperhidrosis sufferers for temporary relief of excessive sweating. A recent study by scientists in Italy has also shown that cannabidiol (CBD), a chemical found in marijuana, seriously inhibits the growth of cancer cells (including breast cancer) in animals. Both scientists and doctors agree that controlled doses of marijuana can help with Chemotherapy and Nausea Treatment, Appetite Stimulation, Glaucoma, Analgesia, and Movement Disorders. Medical marijuana is used for analgesia, or pain relief. “Marijuana is used for analgesia only in the context of a handful of illnesses [e.g., headache, dysentery, menstrual cramps, and depression] that are often cited by marijuana advocates as medical reasons to justify the drug being available as a prescription medication. A recent study has also concluded that cannabinoids found in cannabis might have the ability to prevent Alzheimer's disease. THC has been shown to reduce arterial blockages.

While I could keep going on the affects of THC, I'll stop for now. Now to compare to tobacco and alcohol:
THC can be both negative and positive, as is true for most drugs. But if you look at alcohol and tobacco, although there are positive medical uses, the negatives are much more prevalent. It is much more possible to OD on alcohol and tobacco (although lesser so for the latter). Both of these are more addictive (from a personal perspective) A study published in The Lancet finds that cannabis is both less harmful and less addictive than either alcohol or tobacco. Twenty drugs were assigned a risk from 0 to 3. Cannabis was ranked 17th out of 20 for harmfulness, while alcohol and tobacco were ranked 11th and 14th respectively. Cannabis was ranked 11th for dependence while alcohol was 6th and tobacco 3rd, behind heroin and cocaine. According to a United Kingdom government report, using cannabis is less dangerous than tobacco, prescription drugs, and alcohol in social harms, physical harm and addiction

Now for the arguments against legalization:
Marijuana is a "Gateway Drug"- Since its origin in the 1950s, the "gateway drug" hypothesis has been one of the central pillars of marijuana drug policy in the United States, but this model of cause and effect has not been proven. Certain studies have shown that tobacco smoking is a better predictor of concurrent illicit drug use than smoking cannabis.The reasoning goes that cannabis users are more likely than non-users to place themselves in situations where other illicit substances are being used. In order to acquire cannabis they are likely to become acquainted with people who use or sell other more stigmatized drugs such as cocaine or heroin, which may lead to serious addictions. Using this philosophy, activities such as smoking tobacco and drinking alcohol may also be regarded as having a gateway effect on youth.

A personal belief of mine addressing the legality of alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana has to do with our past. Alcohol has been around forever, so there is no way that could be deemed illegal (infact they tried, but it didn't work). Same reason for tobacco. Marijuana on the other hand: the term is now well known in English largely due to the efforts of American drug prohibitionists during the 1920s and 1930s, which deliberately used a Mexican name for cannabis in order to turn the populace against the idea that it should be legal, playing upon attitudes toward race.

Sorry about the long read

[hifigator]

Tables wrote:

So you are arguing that, in sum, the social costs of alcohol and tobacco exceed those of marijuana simply because the first two are legal (and, you presume, more widely used) while the third is illegal and used less.

You missed the point. What I was saying is that obviously there is a greater cost now with tobacco and alcohol since they are legal. But my assertion is that even if the costs associated with legal weed would also be less.

Underlying your argument (carried over from another thread) is that the strict enforcement of anti-marijuana laws is questionable because it doesn't have as much of a social cost as the aforementioned "legal" activities. What underlines this claim? I'd like to see some real data, not just a "let me list all the bad things that booze and smokes cause and then dismiss marijuana use with a couple of jokes suggesting that it would actually be a good idea for people to drive while high."

The effects of alcohol are undeniable on the motor skills and judgement of all people, some to a greater degree and obviously some have much lower tolerances than others. However, marijuana is not the same. That alone would suggest a lower level of costs, simply because some percentage respond by driving slower. A drunk may try to do that, but that there is no way to counteract the effects to the motor skills and coordination. Secondly, I read something just yesterday which detailed the effects of marijuana on coordination and there was not nearly the direct correlation that there is with alcohol. Don't get me wrong. I am not suggesting that people should smoke and drive, just that if they do then all indications are that it is less dangerous that drinking and driving.


Also, what you fail to consider is what the marginal social cost of marijuana use is versus alcohol and tobacco, which likely explains in part (though admittedly not completely (a) why marijuana is illegal and alcohol and tobacco are not and (b) why marijuana laws are enforced. That was my original point -- taken on an incremental basis, do the social costs of marijuana use outweigh the incremental social costs of alcohol or drug use? You dismiss the social costs as merely "appetite" and "apathy." Do you really believe that to be true? That's like arguing the only real social costs of tobacco use are smelling bad, or the only real social costs of alcohol use are slurred speech. All three are addictive substances that alter body chemistry and, in large doses, can have long-term effects that every teacher, health official, scientist, and parent I've ever known agrees are harmful to the human body.

The comment about appetite and apathy was somewhat tongue-in-cheek. Actually I stole it from Mick Foley and reworded it. He said in his first book that he draws a clear distinction between mj and all other illegal drugs. Even though he doesn't smoke, he said that in his 20 plus years of being around wrestlers who smoke, all he has seen it do is make people "hungry and happy."
As for pot being addictive, the verdict is still out. All studies I have read say that thc is NOT physically addictive, while alcohol and tobacco are. As for the harm to the body, I would guess that pot could have the same dangers to the lungs as tobacco if it was smoked in the same quantities, but that is irrelevant. Even the most hard core pot smokers would have trouble smoking 60 joints a day, and yet there are quite a few cig smokers who go through 3 packs a day. Even if you cut that back to a pack a day, it proves my point. 20 joints a day is far more than anyone I know. I'm sure there is someone somewhere who has smoked 20 joints in one day, but in all seriousness, that is a miniscule amount at best. [/i]


Given that marijuana is illegal, I think the burden is to provide that it does not impose social costs that outweigh its benefits (and/or human free will to choose to use the substance) in the absolute. I don't agree with your comparative approach at all--it allows for the value/cost evaluation of marijuana to rely on whether the value/cost evaluation of alcohol and tobacco was properly calculated. That type of relativity is dangerous and is a very slippery slope. Alternately, using your logic, alcohol and tobacco use should be illegal because they have higher social costs.

You are putting the cart before the horse somewhat. The comparative costs are for illustrating the argument not to justify the ideology. In other words, I am not saying that pot should be legal BECAUSE the cost/value balance says so. But I am pointing out that the argument for it being illegal is flawed. In other words, it is illegal WHY? Because it is an intoxicating drug and can be harmful to the body in some way. Well the same is true of alcohol and tobacco among other things, yet they are legal. So I don't think you can use that reasoning to justify its illegality. But your conclusion is logical. IF that is the justification, THEN alcohol and tobacco should be illegal as well.


Finally, you ignore the efforts that are undertaken to mitigate the social costs of alcohol and tobacco use. While individuals are arrested for merely having a "joint or two", many individuals are also arrested and prosecuted for merely having a "drink or two." So I also take issue with your allegation that it is somehow not worth the time to arrest someone for marijuana use. If the enforcement officials adapted your strategy to alcohol use, then wouldn't the social costs of alcohol use increase? Isn't enforcement worth it, given those high social costs?

Again you were confusing two different points. My point about the cops doing something else had nothing to do with cost/value argument. My point was that within 6 blocks of that reverse sting operation, I guarantee you there were assaults and burglaries going on, and maybe a rape or worse. I think energies would be better spent on crimes of that nature. If you get to the point where those issues are no longer a problem and you have extra manpower left over, then focus on some of the more minor offenses. I wouldn't expect an officer on patrol to look the other way if he saw guys smoking a joint, and in fact would expect him to approach them. But that isn't the same as tying up a dozen officers for 6 hours running a reverse sting busting people attempting to buy misdemeanor amounts of weed for personal use. In other words, I wasn't talking about general costs of enforcement, but specifically that level of cost to generate what little "benefit" to society. They busted 4 guys overall. Powell, James and 2 unknown people for purchase and possession of a bag. So you do the math. 12 officers for 6 hours, and all they netted was 4 simple possessions. If any of the guys has some extensive history then they might get a felony purchase charge, but that's it. I would contend that 6 officers on bikes and 6 in cars patroling the sector would have been far more effective.

[hifigator]

On a related topic, one of our board members makes some good points:


The man in charge of the crusade against Marijuana was Henry Anslinger - the first "Drug Czar." In 1929 (Great Depression), the House Health Committee heard a reports such as this one:

Quote:
Marijuana is Mexican opium, a plant used by Mexicans and cultivated for sale by Indians. 'When some beet field peon takes a few rares of this stuff,' explained Dr. Fred Fulsher of Mineral County, 'he thinks he has just been elected president of Mexico so he starts to execute all his political enemies...'


Mexican farmers took jobs from American laborers during the depression, which caused a major backlash on what was believed to be the source of that - marijuana. The states in the south pushed for legislation to make marijuana illegal in an effort to slow the trend of Mexican farmers and their families entering the US workforce. There is also some speculation that Anslinger's motivations had something to do with his affiliation to DuPont petrochemical, who wished to hold the market in hemp production.

In 1930 the Treasury Department created a new division - the Federal Bureau of Narcotics with Anslinger named director. It was about this time that Anslinger began using mass media to run his crusade against marijuana, with the popular "reefer madness" campaign.

Quote:
An entire family was murdered by a youthful addict in Florida. When officers arrived at the home, they found the youth staggering about in a human slaughterhouse. With an axe he had killed his father, mother, two brothers, and a sister. He seemed to be in a daze… He had no recollection of having committed the multiple crime. The officers knew him ordinarily as a sane, rather quiet young man; now he was pitifully crazed. They sought the reason. The boy said that he had been in the habit of smoking something which youthful friends called “muggles,” a childish name for marijuana


Quote:
Two Negros took a girl fourteen years old and kept her for two days under the influence of marijuana. Upon recovery she was found to be suffering from syphilis


In 1937, under Anslinger's guidance, the Marijuana Tax Act (H.R. 6906) was passed - a cornerstone in the criminalization of Marijuana
www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/taxact/taxact.htm

However, in 1939 New York Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia was selected by the New York Academy of Medicine to compile a report on the effects of Marijuana on large city populations. He submitted the LaGuardia Committee Report in 1944 (data from 1939-1944). In the report, LaGuardia described his findings of Marijuana's relative harmlessness on society, citing reports from law enforcement, previous studies conducted by the ARMY, and the observations collected during the data period. Some of the relevant findings were:

-The use of marijuana does not lead to morphine or heroin or cocaine addiction and no effort is made to create a market for these narcotics by stimulating the practice of marijuana smoking

-Marijuana is not a determining factor in the commission of major crimes

-Juvenile delinquency is not associated with the practice of smoking marijuana

-The publicity concerning the catastrophic effects of marijuana smoking in New York City is unfounded

www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/lag/lagmenu.htm

That report was brushed under the rug for several reasons. Continuing economic concerns, the influence of Anslinger, and potential major conflicts in government considering the previous "reefer madness" campaign - these were not the days of dissent and stirring up controversy, as is our current age of CNN, FOX News, etc.

[hifigator]

Here is a link to a similar debate on our board.


www.gatorsportsforum.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2732885#2732885

[theexorcist]

I'll first postulate that both alcohol and tobacco have potential for abuse which is often realized. Both alcohol and tobacco are consistently ingrained in American culture. Banning either is thus infeasible.

The problem that I have with NORML is that they see this as some sort of Kantian "if X is worse than Y, and X is legal, then Y should be legal, too" logic. Why does this follow?

Many people abuse tobacco and alcohol, which are legal for those of a certain age and are produced in large quantities. If marijuana is legal, then it probably follows that it will be abused by some, and that that abuse will probably be greater than it is now because more people will use it due to the reduced stigma. Notably, marijuana use does affect the ability to drive, which can lead to more people getting (indirectly) killed or injured.

Given that, I'm fine with a political decision that accepts alcohol and tobacco as legal rereational drugs, even if they are more dangerous than marijuana, a decision that legalizing additional drugs creates a greater pool of people that will use recreational drugs, and a decision that we want to reduce or keep steady the numbers of people using recreational drugs.

The last point is important. If we legalize marijuana, I think that some people will use marijuana that a) wouldn't abuse alcohol or tobacco, and b) wouldn't have abused marijuana if it weren't legal. This means more people abusing recreational drugs. Marijuana loses out just as any other recreational drug would.

My medical objections are similar - other legal, nonrecreational drugs provide similar benefits, so creating a market to grow a drug that is abused is not a good idea. Legalization advocates argue that it is a valuable "tool in the toolbox", but unless they argue that it's "essential" for certain conditions (cf. Oxycontin, which is remarkably valuable for pain control despite nasty dependency concerns), I don't see its value.

Short version - just because marijuana is less addictive or less dangerous than alcohol doesn't mean that it has a constitutional right to be legal.

[hifigator]

theexorcist said:

I'll first postulate that both alcohol and tobacco have potential for abuse which is often realized. Both alcohol and tobacco are consistently ingrained in American culture. Banning either is thus infeasible.

The problem that I have with NORML is that they see this as some sort of Kantian "if X is worse than Y, and X is legal, then Y should be legal, too" logic. Why does this follow?

Many people abuse tobacco and alcohol, which are legal for those of a certain age and are produced in large quantities. If marijuana is legal, then it probably follows that it will be abused by some, and that that abuse will probably be greater than it is now because more people will use it due to the reduced stigma. Notably, marijuana use does affect the ability to drive, which can lead to more people getting (indirectly) killed or injured.

Given that, I'm fine with a political decision that accepts alcohol and tobacco as legal rereational drugs, even if they are more dangerous than marijuana, a decision that legalizing additional drugs creates a greater pool of people that will use recreational drugs, and a decision that we want to reduce or keep steady the numbers of people using recreational drugs.

The last point is important. If we legalize marijuana, I think that some people will use marijuana that a) wouldn't abuse alcohol or tobacco, and b) wouldn't have abused marijuana if it weren't legal. This means more people abusing recreational drugs. Marijuana loses out just as any other recreational drug would.

My medical objections are similar - other legal, nonrecreational drugs provide similar benefits, so creating a market to grow a drug that is abused is not a good idea. Legalization advocates argue that it is a valuable "tool in the toolbox", but unless they argue that it's "essential" for certain conditions (cf. Oxycontin, which is remarkably valuable for pain control despite nasty dependency concerns), I don't see its value.

Short version - just because marijuana is less addictive or less dangerous than alcohol doesn't mean that it has a constitutional right to be legal.

You make some decent points. With regard to the "legality" issue, I guess it ultimately depends on your view of government. If you support more government or regulations, then you ask the question why should we legalize it? And from that angle your logical analogy is sound. But if one is of the opinion that we shouldn't look for reasons to have more government but should only look to government out of necessity, then the question becomes not why should we legalize it but rather why should we criminalize it? Essentially the burden of proof has then shifted. And in such a light becomes much less clear.

As a believer of the less government the better, I fall in that second category, so it is really no surprise where I fall on this issue. That being said, even disregarding my predispositions to/against government, I honestly think that it should be legal given our society today. I hate to sound like a walking cliche' board, but there is an expression you have to play the cards you've been dealt. What that means in this case, is that with our accepted views as they are today in society, does it make logical sense to have pot illegal because it is an intoxicant? No, it doesn't, given that we can have alcohol and tobacco legally.

Is it smart or wise to drive after smoking a joint? Some would argue yes, but I think most of us would say no. But that still doesn't matter. We have rules and laws in place to govern such.

So again, I would ask why should marijuana be illegal?

[theexorcist]

(unless specifically mentioned below, "drugs" means recreational drugs - i.e., drugs that don't have a specific medical use for recovering from disease or an ongoing condition. It notably includes alcohol and tobacco).

I'd assume that you'd favor making heroin or cocaine illegal. Both drugs, even when used in controlled environments, are remarkably addictive and dangerous (if you'd favor legalization of these, then we're coming from two exceptionally different perspectives that I can't bridge).

If you posit that the US government should make heroin and cocaine illegal, then the government has some obligation to make certain drugs illegal. The only question now is which drugs fit in the "legal" bin and which drugs fit in the "illegal" bin. I immediately throw alcohol and tobacco into the "legal" bin for two reasons. One is because making them illegal is politically unfeasible. I'll get to the second in a minute.

The government bans certain items because they are dangerous to your health, but this isn't enough - Twinkies aren't the perfect food, but they're not dangerous enough to be banned. I also oppose banning trans fats.

But drugs are different because they affect your brain chemistry and who you are. You can eat Dove bars 24-7 and turn into a whale, but your brain is still the same. Drugs alter you. Altering you is very dangerous, especially because some people get psychologically or physically addicated to certain drugs and find it impossible to stop the alteration. Porn or video games also affect the brain, but they do so indirectly. There's thus no compelling reason to ban them. Medicine to treat schizophrenia, depression, or bipolar disorder alter you, as well, but they do it for what is considered by the informed medical public to be a "better" mental condition. Medicine that alter your brain while treating physical ailments - for allergies or pain - are also acceptable because the benefits outweigh the alteration. Drugs that are used to "feel better" don't meet my acceptable use threshold.

Here we get to the second reason as to why to keep alcohol and tobacco legal - they're both in the "legal" bin already, and their effects and dangers are very well-known. Alcohol and tobacco allow people who favor a mind-altering state for their own pleasure to get one with as little risk as possible to themselves - and it does it without intoducing another drug into the mix (I don't subscribe to the "Reefer Madness" stereotype, but saying that someone who's stoned is just going to mellow out and not infringe upon my or someone else's liberty and/or pursuit of happiness seems like a stretch).

The direct altering of the mind, to me, legitimizes the morality of allowing the government to deny access to drugs in general. The fact that alcohol and tobacco are and will remain legal gives the government greater leeway in denying access to marijuana. The low levels of other mind-altering substances such as caffeine, kava, or qat do not do sufficient damage to justify their being rendered illegal (though their access can and probably should be controlled).

At the end, I agree that this is a legitimate issue on which reasonable people can disagree. But I likewise assert that it is not obvious that marijuana should be legalized.

[hifigator]

exorcist, I thank you for very reasonable discourse. Some could learn from that, but I won't list any names.

That being said, I agree with you that heroin and cocain among others should remain in the illegal category. As you point out, they serve no benefit aside from the high. And as most addicts will honestly tell you, very quickly it becomes not so much of a high, but rather a needed chemical to avoid a new low. When you add to that the fact that not only are heroin and cocaine highly addictive, but can easily kill you in an overdose, then I too think it reasonable for government to have our best interests in mind, and for them to criminalize such drugs. The same is true of PCP/Angel Dust and LSD as well. I am not so familiar with halucinagenic mushrooms, but would guess them to be of the same category. I am a little bit hesitent to consider them in the same way however since they are a natural product without any tinkering. Sure, the coca plant and the opium poppy are natural as well, but the resulting drug we see from these origins is so drastically different from its original form as to be viewed entirely differently. Having made that clear, I still see no reason to look for a reason to put a drug into the illegal category. There are reasons which I have mentioned which would justify criminalization such as being highly addictive and highly dangerous. Using your argument, maybe it is the combination of these factors which justify criminalization.

In any case, I think there are two separate questions. The first is should marijuana be legalized for medicinal purposes. On this one I will not budge. I have read and learned enough to determine that there are certainly valid medicinal uses. As mentioned before, marijuana has been successful in the treatment of recovering cancer patients in numerous ways. It eases their pain in some cases, but it treats nausea which often accompanies the chemo and or radiation therapy. It has also been proven to be useful in the treatment of patients with glaucoma and other eye diseases. Thirdly it is useful as a general pain medication in some cases. If you follow the link above to our board, you can find a story I related from personal experience. But the gist is that one of my sales reps was diagnosed wrongly as having a pinched nerve. The only drugs which really worked on the pain were oxycontin which he was prescribed and really good pot. With oxy, he kept having to bump up the dosage as his body adjusted and he could literally feel himself becoming addicted. He stumbled onto the weed almost accidentally and within 5 minutes said that he felt better than he had in weeks. He told his doctor who told him to stick with the pot. That is entirely true and free of any embellishment. In any case, my point is very clear on medicinal use and I have yet to hear a single reason it shouldn't be legalized at least in that regard.
People have said they can't legalize it because they can't regulate it since there is no consistency in the potency of marijuana. Off the record, I could probably help them in that area, but in all seriousness, so what? If that is the legitimate argument, then it should be legal for those with a prescription to grow their own pot for personal consumption only. Besides, I find it hard to believe that scientists couldn't create a strain of plants with consistent content. Friends of mine have become very adept at that through the years.

The second question of general legalization is a bit more difficult, but again, using your boundaries, you see it as legitimately illegal and suggest other avenues of similar effect such as alcohol. I would suggest that using your reasoning, pot should be legal since it is not as dangerous as alcohol to a human body. I don't think much of your circular reasoning that because alcohol is already legal and we can't feasibly change that, that we shouldn't legalize marijuana as well. I don't see any logic to that conclusion. In short, I disagree directly with your statement:

The fact that alcohol and tobacco are and will remain legal gives the government greater leeway in denying access to marijuana.

How do you arrive at that point?

[theexorcist]

Everybody else bored yet?

1. I haven't done much research on marijuana and medicinal use. Everything I've read seems to indicate that it's useful for very few things, and on those things that it's useful for, other items with similar pros and cons exist. If marijuana provides a significant benefit that no other drug provides, I wouldn't object to its use for medicinal purposes - the problem that I have is that those in favor of increased use tend to blast out every case where one could theoretically use marijuana, rather than those few cases where it's best.

I consider the above important is because my logic is a cost-benefit analysis. If marijuana isn't that much of a medical miracle, it's not worth encouraging production. If it is of obvious and unique medical benefit, then limited production makes sense.

2. I have two potential solutions on my side that I have to shoot down. The first is why not to simply make marijuana legal if it's not as addictive or as dangerous as alcohol (tobacco counts, too, but alcohol has more negative short-term effects and I'm sick of repeatedly writing "and tobacco). The second is to why not make alcohol illegal.

Politically, alcohol won't be made illegal any time in the future. People like at least some recreational drugs. So the second solution isn't feasible.

My logic is that recreational drugs are bad for you. Pot is especially bad because you use it to get high - as far as I know (I am SO out of my element on this one), there's no equivalent of one glass of beer to get buzzed. Smoking pot to get high, to me, is the same is drinking to get drunk. In both cases, when you are chemically altered, you are a danger to yourself and to others. The government now has the moral responsibility to get involved to make sure you don't hurt anyone.

If that argument gets torn up, my fallback is that many studies have shown that drinking some amount of alcohol actually provides health benefits. Nothing similar exists for marijuana (the same exists for tobacco, but tobacco doesn't alter your mood and so I feel that tobacco is basically like eating a poisonous Twinkie that lightly poisons everyone downwind of you - plus more jurisdictions are moving to make tobacco illegal, so I wouldn't hitch my wagon to that argument). Marijuana has no healthful properties and alters your brain in some way. Not good.

3. On your last question - the libertarian in me says that people should have access to recreational drugs if they want to use them I respond that giving people access to everything in the medicine cabinet is a dumb idea.

So, as a reasonable compromise, if someone wants to experience new worlds, they can do it with the two legal recreational drugs we have now - alcohol and tobacco. I chose them because they're not going away and I feel no obligation of the government to legalize marijuana because "the high is different". My position is thus that a legal recreational drug is being offered as an option, but the government is under no obligation to offer many different choices. Reasonable people may disagree on this, but this is how I'd approach the decision after being presented with the above facts.

I hope this is clear.

[hifigator]

exorcist, you have an underlying assumption which is somewhat unclear, but the effect of which is not. I am not sure why, but you have a presumption that mood alteration in any sort is "bad." I am not sure whether that comes from a moral sense or a religious sense or whether it stems from an assumption that any altering in this sort is unhealthy. In any case, it is very difficult to have reasonable debate with such an underlying premise. Unless I miss something, you start with the assumption that mind alteration is a bad thing. Therefore how do we respond?

I disagree. I understand people being of the opinion that they shouldn't use this or that for religious reasons. I also understand someone wishing to abstain from this or that because they are scared of potential effects or simply because they choose not to. I would also understand some shallow but ingrained view that such things are simply "wrong," although I would disagree.

In any case, it is impossible to have a meeting of the minds when you you preemptive underlying premises which I do not.

If I understand your views, basically you claim that any mind alteration is wrong for some reason, but accept that some want to. You then correctly point out that alcohol and tobacco are firmly ingrained into our culture and that will not change. Then you conclude that those options are "enough" and that the government does and rightfully should illegalize any other. Is that correct?

If so, then we have reached an impasse.


Here are a couple of interesting links and quotes concerning positive and negative effects of marijuana:

(This first was in response to a suggestion that driving with THC in your system is as bad if not worse than driving with alcohol in your system)

The U.S. Department of Transportation and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration disagee with you:

Quote:
THC's adverse effects on driving performance appear relatively small.

A low THC dose (100 ug/kg) does not impair driving ability in urban traffic to the same extent as a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.04g%.

The maximum road tracking impairment after the highest THC dose (300 ug/kg) was within a range of effects produced by many commonly used medicinal drugs and less than that associated with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.08g% in previous studies employing the same test.

www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/misc/driving/driving.htm




See also:

J. Carr-Brown, Cannabis May Make You a Safer Driver, Sunday Times (August 13, 2000), www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/global. (Research by the Australian Drugs Foundation found that cannabis was the only drug tested that decreased the relative risk of having an accident...nstead of proving that drug-taking while driving increased the risk of accidents, researchers found that the mellowing effects of cannabis made drivers more cautious and so less likely to drive dangerously


www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n1999/a06.html

www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_driving6.pdf

etc, etc


Millions of people in this country drive under the influence of their prescription benzodiazepenes (xanax, valium, ativan) and/or tricyclic antidepressants. Those drugs have an equal or greater effect on driving performance based on the above studies, yet you express no outrage as to their legal status? Please respond

[theexorcist]

Good discussion. After this, I'm pretty much tapped out.

1. Last part first. Xanax and valium are legal because of their benefit to what is considered a "good" mental state - i.e., they "fix" a specific problem in the brain. Marijuana has no use to alter brain chemistry that I know of (I wouldn't consider pain reduction "brain chemistry").

Their use by some during driving is dangerous and should be regulated like driving while drunk. Anyone who knowingly takes xanax and gets behind the wheel aware that it zonks them out is a liability to hurt others.

2. You're probably correct that we've reached an impasse. Altering the mind, for me, is very visceral and should not be done lightly. It, to me, seems to come down to the "government should severely regulate it" based on the idea that a democracy requires an informed public, and something about members of that informed public destroying brain cells really rubs me the wrong way - especially when it has no health benefits whatsoever. I can't really describe it better.

You've basically described my position. Honorable men can differ and all that jazz.

[hoyatables]

theexorcist said:

Altering the mind, for me, is very visceral and should not be done lightly. It, to me, seems to come down to the "government should severely regulate it" based on the idea that a democracy requires an informed public, and something about members of that informed public destroying brain cells really rubs me the wrong way - especially when it has no health benefits whatsoever. I can't really describe it better.

Excellent points (both here and in general).

[hifigator]

Fair enough. Your position is reasonable, although I disagree.

Mine is somewhat different. From the political standpoint, I think that there should be a very strong need for government to get involved in issues of personal freedoms. I have yet to see any such need in the case of marijuana use. The closest is the gateway theory, but I think it has been fairly well debunked.

From the issue standpoint in particular, I have two basic stances. I think medicinal uses have been proven and see absolutely zero reason why it should not be available such needs. The fact that other drugs might have the same benefits to me is largely irrelevant. We didn't not create acetimenophen because we already had aspirin. Advil and Ibuprofen also have similar effects, but some prefer one over another. How many drugs are there now for ED? It seems like two or three new ones pop out every weekend. So I see no need to single out marijuana because other drugs can have similar effects on people. By the way, marinol is supposedly a similar effect as weed. Personally when I have encountered that, it did nothing but make me tired. Maybe it affects people differently, but that would only further support medicinal marijuana.

As for recreational use, I just don't see the need for governmental involvement. Alcohol and tobacco pose far greater risks and costs to society and yet they are legal. In short, I am open for discussion, but I have sen little reason why weed should be illegal.

[Coast2CoastHoya]

One additional thing to consider: the financial costs-benefits of keeping cannabis illegal and enforcing its criminality domestically and abroad vs. the financial costs-benefits of decriminalization or legalization and taxation.

Elements of this additional consideration:

money spent on the status quo: judicial proceedings; domestic police departments making arrests, rooting out growers/sellers/distributors/users domestically, culling crops; FBI and DEA actions domestically (including labor and ops costs); US government (DEA, CIA, whoever else might be invovled) actions abroad dealing with foreign cartels and growers/sellers/ distributors,

v.

money to be saved: fewer police actions as a result of decriminalization or legalization; taxation of growth/sales/distribution; possibility of domestic market replacing foreign cartels hence alleviating necessity of expenditures on drug enforcement abroad, possible crime reduction as a result of primary cultivation in the US by individual users as opposed to Latin American cartels, etc.

This isn't intended to advocate for or against decriminalization or legalization, just illustrate that the debate goes well beyond the relative harms or "highs" of individual cannabis use or libertarian politics and deeply into our nation's fiscal situation, foreign policy, law enforcement policy, and the nighmarish global problems caused by drug cartels. In my belief, "social costs" very much extends to where our tax dollars come from and what they pay for. Our national financial and political picture would look very, very different if alcohol and tobacco were not legal and taxed. I simply wonder what our world would look like if cannabis were legal (or not criminal) and taxed.

This really comes down to social policy and philosophy, and the ultimate question in a liberal democratic republic of "what kind of world do we want to live in?"; i.e., what do we want to spend our tax dollars on and what do we want to earn tax dollars from? I suppose this is illustrated in part by how people vote (which is overwhelmingly against legalization or decriminalization in some places and overwhelmingly for legalization or decrminalization in others), but I wonder if the debate is being properly framed.

I would invite someone with better knowledge of how much money is spent fighting against cannabis production, distribution, sales, and use to inform this discussion -- with particular attention to accomplishments and effectiveness of said expenditures. I would likewise invite someone with better knowledge of projected money saved by legalization or decriminalization and taxation of production, distribution, sales, and use to do the same -- with particular afftention to projected increases in "social ills" like addiction, DUI, crime, etc.

Relatedly -- but tangentially -- there's a guy named Nandor Tanczos in New Zealand who is both a member of Parliament and a rastafarian. Check out www.nandor.nz.net to see one unique lawmaker's views on the subject.

[Coast2CoastHoya]

hoyatables said:

theexorcist said:

Altering the mind, for me, is very visceral and should not be done lightly. It, to me, seems to come down to the "government should severely regulate it" based on the idea that a democracy requires an informed public, and something about members of that informed public destroying brain cells really rubs me the wrong way - especially when it has no health benefits whatsoever. I can't really describe it better.

Excellent points (both here and in general).

It's also why Mexico enforces a strict ban on all sales of alcohol 72 hours before a national election. I saw this first hand: the first day of the ban in 2003 was on July 4th. Lots of unhappy Americans that day ....

[hifigator]

C2C, he's a rastafarian??? I have a feeling he and I might see eye to eye. Anyone have any Visene? Just kidding.

Serioulsy though, you make some excellent points and highlight some areas which might not immediately come to mind when we consider and weigh costs versus values.

On a side note, for anyone interested, here are some articles on studies which found cannibis to potentially be very affective in treating cancer. Notice that this use goes well beyond the "making them feel better" or "relieving nausea so they can eat." Those against legalization always rant about those uses, claiming that it notes nothing but being high and having the munchies. But these reports take it far deeper and actually suggest a potential cure for cancer.



www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,196678,00.html

safeaccess.ca/research/cancer.htm

www.medical-marijuana-testimonials.org/Cancer-and-medical-marijuana.htm

[Coast2CoastHoya]

hifigator said:

C2C, he's a rastafarian??? I have a feeling he and I might see eye to eye. Anyone have any Visene? Just kidding.

Serioulsy though, you make some excellent points and highlight some areas which might not immediately come to mind when we consider and weigh costs versus values.

Thanks, hifi -- I just think that in a complex, modern society, these kinds of issues very much inform a discussion about social costs and values, and speak to the very morality of society itself, and we should take care to frame the issue in the right light rather than be informed by outdated stereotypes and fears (like "Reefer Madness"). To paraphrase what someone once said, "in the right light, even a large figure casts a small shadow," to which I reply: we should take care to focus on the figure and not be seduced by its shadow.

I personally don't use cannabis but can see some very compelling arguments for decriminalization or legalization and taxation.

And yeah, he's a rasta. Pretty interesting dude -- reportedly wears hemp suits to Parliament and smokes the green stuff outside, which he gets away with under NZ's religious expression laws (that's a rumor I heard when I lived there -- never did any fact checking, but pretty funny if it's true). He's a member of the Green Party (not a surprise there) and is an MP as a "list member" which means that, under NZ's Mixed Member Proportional system (wherein everyone gets two votes -- one for their preferred candidate and one for their preferred political party) he represents the party at Parliament rather than a single-member district. The NZ Green Party has six MPs, all of whom are list members.