|
Dr Mark Kleiman (some drug policy 'expert' from UCLA) has posted this on his blog:quote:In my view, an increase of as little as 10% in heavy drinking would wipe out any benefits from cannabis legalization http://www.samefacts.com/2012/12/drug-policy/cannabis-and-alcohol-reprise/ This seems rather disingenuous to me. The primary benefit of cannabis legalisation is that the law becomes more 'just' and people are no longer locked in cages for buying or selling plant matter. I don't see how alcohol consumption can erase this benefit or how he can possibly calculate such a precise figure.
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2012 21:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 09:42 |
|
|
KingEup posted:I don't see how alcohol consumption can erase this benefit or how he can possibly calculate such a precise figure. Yeah, it doesn't necessarily follow that marijuana legalization would increase alcohol consumption. If I could smoke instead of drink, I would switch in a heartbeat. Alcohol is terrible for your body and everyone knows it, but if you want to be inebriated it's the only legal game in town. Even if you don't think there are many people who switch over fully, I think there would be be lots of cases where people substitute a lot of alcohol for weed with a little alcohol as a potency booster. For what it's worth Kleiman is actually addressing that as a claim someone else made, he doesn't think it automatically follows either. quote:But he ignores the opposite possibility, equally plausible in terms of both logic and evidence. If legalizing cannabis (under some specified set of taxes and regulations, including, for example, a ban on lacing beer with cannabinoids) turned out to decrease heavy drinking by 10%, then any “public health case against cannabis legalization” would vanish in – pardon me – a puff of smoke. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 21:25 on Dec 28, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2012 21:23
|
|
|
So he's basically arguing that heavy drinking is a public health menace completely orthogonally to anything to do with cannabis?
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2012 21:29
|
|
|
Dusseldorf posted:So he's basically arguing that heavy drinking is a public health menace completely orthogonally to anything to do with cannabis? He's saying that since alcohol use and cannabis use are correlated, the legalization of cannabis could potentially cause an increase in the use of alcohol, and if it does so beyond a certain degree then the benefits of cannabis legalization would be neutralized. If there's anyone that starts drinking alcohol (or begins to do so more heavily) because they've just started smoking legal marijuana (instead of smoking or not smoking illegal marijuana), then I need to find that person and make a case study of their intoxication psychology. Otherwise this screams "correlation != causation" in my view. Alcohol use and cannabis use are correlated because people who want to intoxicate themselves are likely to use whatever substances are available to them. You could write an exact analogue to his blog post by substituting heroin for alcohol and every one of his points would still be applicable and stupid. mdemone fucked around with this message at 22:11 on Dec 28, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2012 22:09
|
|
|
Dusseldorf posted:So he's basically arguing that heavy drinking is a public health menace completely orthogonally to anything to do with cannabis? Honestly it would be an enormous, enormous boon to public health if we could convince even a small portion of the people who self-medicate with alcohol to do so with marijuana instead. Just because Prohibition didn't work doesn't change the fact that alcohol is the most destructive drug in America.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2012 22:57
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:For what it's worth Kleiman is actually addressing that as a claim someone else made, he doesn't think it automatically follows either. Sure, but that's not what I take issue with. I take issue with the idea that anyone has the knowledge or prescience required (other than the God Emperor himself) to calculate, down to a precise numerical unit, the harm caused buy alcohol and then how many of these 'units' would offset the benefits of ending cannabis prohibition. KingEup fucked around with this message at 23:10 on Dec 28, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2012 22:59
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:Later on he tried to get me and my girlfriend to I am so glad this post did not go where I thought it was going.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2012 23:03
|
|
|
eSports Chaebol posted:Just because Prohibition didn't work doesn't change the fact that alcohol is the most destructive drug in America. Somebody find that Lancet study and post the main bar-chart figure, if you would. I've lost track of the article and I'd like to know which of the "hard" drugs came in underneath alcohol.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2012 23:08
|
|
|
KingEup posted:Sure, but that's not what I take issue with. Which is exactly what he's saying in the post: "Since the benefit-cost analysis of cannabis legalization turns crucially on its effect on heavy drinking, and since that effect is unknown, dogmatic assertions about whether legalization would, on balance, be beneficial or harmful are not justified by the current state of knowledge. (Principled support for legalization on libertarian grounds, or principled opposition to it on cultural-conservative grounds, remain logical possibilities.)"
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2012 23:13
|
|
|
Space Gopher posted:Which is exactly what he's saying in the post: Then why the hell does he assert that: quote:an increase of as little as 10% in heavy drinking would wipe out any benefits from cannabis legalization Why should the cost benefit analysis of cannabis legalisation turn crucially on its effect on heavy drinking and not say, heavy eating? After-all, the prevalence of obesity is lower in cannabis users than non users. KingEup fucked around with this message at 00:12 on Dec 29, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2012 23:27
|
|
|
KingEup posted:Then why the hell does he assert that: We know that there's some correlation between cannabis use and heavy drinking, and we know that heavy drinking causes all sorts of massive social problems. Therefore, it's reasonable to think (at least at first blush) that the alcohol/cannabis connection might be a reasonable thing to think about in a cost/benefit analysis of ending cannabis prohibition. Kleiman's point, though, is that we don't know the details of that connection. Anyone who says either, "we can't legalize weed, it'd make people drink more and ruin everything!" or, "we have to legalize weed, it'll make people drink less and make everything better!" is making an ideological rather than a data-driven claim. Frum is using Kleiman's article to try to say that the former is supported by research, and Kleiman is refuting him. As for the 10% number, it's basically a back-of-the-envelope estimate. Kleiman freely admits it's not an exact thing (note the "in my view" disclaimer and talk about how different people might assign other weights and probabilities, and come up with different answers), but the overall conclusion is not "we should base policy on this back-of-the-envelope estimate." Rather, it's more like, "it's not going to end the world, or singlehandedly save it - the best thing to do is let WA and CO do their thing, and see exactly what happens."
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 00:06
|
|
|
He's got a PhD in public policy, meaning that he doesn't understand math.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 00:10
|
|
|
Delta-Wye posted:The nice thing about it being legalized in Washington and Colorado is that the culture was such it was drat-near legalized already and isn't a huge shift to begin with. I imagine that half or more of that 45% disagreed, but probably not strongly enough to think it would really change much. Yeah, I think the ultimate answer to the question in the thread title is "nothing really." The reason marijuana should have been legal all this time was always that nothing would really happen if it were, except fewer people pointlessly going to jail.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 00:24
|
|
|
Space Gopher posted:As for the 10% number, it's basically a back-of-the-envelope estimate. Kleiman freely admits it's not an exact thing Not exact? It's freakin' guesswork. We do not live a science fiction novel where human computers have the ability to make accurate projections based on an limitless number of variables. KingEup fucked around with this message at 01:26 on Dec 29, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 01:18
|
|
|
KingEup posted:Not exact? It's freakin' guesswork. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back-of-the-envelope_calculation Yeah. Pretty much. He even admits it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 01:20
|
|
|
nucleicmaxid posted:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back-of-the-envelope_calculation Did you not see the part about how a back of the envelope calculation is not a guess?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 01:23
|
|
|
nucleicmaxid posted:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back-of-the-envelope_calculation So why does he even bother? "Hey guys, I came up with this meaningless figure, check it out!"
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 01:24
|
|
|
IAMKOREA posted:Did you not see the part about how a back of the envelope calculation is not a guess? The way I read it was that it is considered an educated guess. Seeing as he has a PhD in social policy, I'd say that likely makes him qualified to do so.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 01:27
|
|
|
In light of the change in policy, Seattle police have relaxed their drug-use policies amongst applicants. Potential cops will not be disqualified for marijuana use before 12 months prior to applying... I imagine other police departments will adopt similar policies or will face a shortage of applicants in a few years. http://www.seattle.gov/police/jobs/hiring/qualifications.htm for reference
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 01:28
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Yeah, I think the ultimate answer to the question in the thread title is "nothing really." The reason marijuana should have been legal all this time was always that nothing would really happen if it were, except fewer people pointlessly going to jail. Marijuana prohibition is such a failure we're already experiencing the worst effects of widespread marijuana use considering a majority of Americans have tried marijuana and millions use it frequently.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 05:08
|
|
|
mdemone posted:Somebody find that Lancet study and post the main bar-chart figure, if you would. I've lost track of the article and I'd like to know which of the "hard" drugs came in underneath alcohol.  SourceAnd a paper in 2010 included "Drugs ranked by 'harm to users' and 'harm to others'  ...and "Drugs ranked by overall harm"  SourceSorry I don't have links to the actual papers handy but I'm typing this on my phone and frankly this is as much hunting, copying and pasting as I'm willing to do right now 
TACD fucked around with this message at 05:13 on Dec 29, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 05:11
|
|
|
TACD posted:graphs So I know the backstory behind why cannabis was made illegal, but when and why were magic mushrooms made illegal?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 08:05
|
|
|
Good ol shrooms, no effects besides trippin out some hippies. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 08:09
|
|
|
Lacrosse posted:So I know the backstory behind why cannabis was made illegal, but when and why were magic mushrooms made illegal? Create a bureaucracy that bans stuff and it just keeps banning stuff.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 08:17
|
|
|
KingEup posted:Create a bureaucracy that bans stuff and it just keeps banning stuff. For a very recent and ongoing example, see Salvia.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 16:38
|
|
|
Space Gopher posted:Which is exactly what he's saying in the post: I take great exception to the idea that "the benefit-cost analysis of cannabis legalization turns crucially on its effect on heavy drinking". I think it is nanny-state nonsense. KingEup posted:Create a bureaucracy that bans stuff and it just keeps banning stuff. I don't dispute this, but if you look at the social backdrop to the institution of the CSA, there was broad public support for it because affluent blocks of society were terrified by the counter-culture movement and the drugs that came with it. While I believe both should be legal to consenting adults, I believe that mushrooms are more 'dangerous' than pot, both in terms of the severity of adverse reactions, and in terms of the ability of the drug to disrupt accepted social norms.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 18:34
|
|
|
spengler posted:I take great exception to the idea that "the benefit-cost analysis of cannabis legalization turns crucially on its effect on heavy drinking". I think it is nanny-state nonsense. That is a non-sequitur. Even if you believe that the state should be minimally involved in people's lives, and therefore account the cost of even minor restrictions on liberty as extraordinarily high, such costs are nonetheless clearly not infinite; otherwise there'd be no difference in the affront the liberty posed by regulation and summary execution! As such, you can measure costs and benefits even if you don't believe that cost-benefit analysis is a legitimate basis for policy. So even if you believe that a cost-benefit analysis of legalization is immaterial to whether or not marijuana should be legalized, that doesn't mean that the cost-benefit analysis of cannibis legalization doesn't turn crucially on its effect on heavy drinking.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 18:44
|
|
|
spengler posted:I take great exception to the idea that "the benefit-cost analysis of cannabis legalization turns crucially on its effect on heavy drinking". I think it is nanny-state nonsense. The decision to legalize or prohibit marijuana use is a social policy decision, with costs and benefits to society. It's perfectly reasonable to look at the data we have now, and try to figure out possible costs and benefits before we make any changes to the status quo. But, it sounds like you're making the argument for "principled support for legalization on libertarian grounds." Which, you'll notice, Kleiman explicitly says is a logically valid argument. It's just one that's outside his professional consideration, because he's a public policy analyst rather than a political philosopher.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 19:17
|
|
|
Hey, people smoke cigs while they drink, why don't we make them illegal again? No, legalizing marijuana is simply the right thing to do and I reject anything less than that. I really hate that even with legalizing weed people want to talk about how much money it will save instead of the very real human cost of people being sent to prison, being killed in the drug war, or being denied their medicine. How it effects heavy drinking is - or should be - completely, utterly irrelevant, even if(and it will be) it is good for the cause.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 19:53
|
|
|
Lacrosse posted:So I know the backstory behind why cannabis was made illegal, but when and why were magic mushrooms made illegal? (I was actually at a music festival when the law came into effect, so every stall selling mushrooms had a huge, blow-out "this poo poo is illegal at midnight" sale that evening. It was awesome.) Perversely, the law as written applied only to psylocibin mushrooms, and did not apply to fly agaric mushrooms - the one species that actually can cause serious harm. This is because it contains muscimol and not psylocibin. Naturally, most headshops and stalls that used to sell harmless magic mushrooms therefore ended up selling the much more dangerous fly agaric mushrooms to their customers as a result.* If you ever want a single story that captures how drug policy is rear end-backwards, and is fear-based rather than fact-based, I think that sums it all up quite neatly. Whenever I find myself talking to somebody who thinks drugs are bad because they're illegal or vice versa it's fun to point out that magic mushrooms went from being entirely legal to as bad as heroin or crack cocaine literally overnight. * I haven't found any figures that state whether or not harm from mushroom consumption went up after the ban due to this, but I'd be interested to find out if anybody knows. Truthfully I don't know if fly agaric is still legal in the UK because I've never been interested in taking any. spengler posted:I believe that mushrooms are more 'dangerous' than pot, both in terms of the severity of adverse reactions, and in terms of the ability of the drug to disrupt accepted social norms. TACD fucked around with this message at 20:16 on Dec 29, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 20:07
|
|
|
Thanks for those papers, TACD. Exactly what I was looking for, and the later studies were new to me as well. Interesting, if not totally surprising, to consider that a reasonable scientific assessment finds that alcohol is the most dangerous drug of all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 20:53
|
|
|
spengler posted:I take great exception to the idea that "the benefit-cost analysis of cannabis legalization turns crucially on its effect on heavy drinking". I think it is nanny-state nonsense. Banning something because it "disrupts accepted social norms" is one of the most fascist and insidious things I've heard in a bit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 21:25
|
|
|
eSports Chaebol posted:you can measure costs and benefits even if you don't believe that cost-benefit analysis is a legitimate basis for policy. True. The tobacco companies once argued that premature death was a desirable thing because it was cheaper than providing healthcare. I believe there's some evidence that criminalising truancy makes sense from a cost benefit perspective too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 22:59
|
|
|
mdemone posted:Thanks for those papers, TACD. Exactly what I was looking for, and the later studies were new to me as well. Interesting, if not totally surprising, to consider that a reasonable scientific assessment finds that alcohol is the most dangerous drug of all. Development of a rational scale to assess the harm of drugs of potential misuse (2007 paper) Drug harms in the UK: a multicriteria decision analysis (2010 paper) And as another side note, the lead author on both papers (David Nutt) lost his job as chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs as an eventual result of the 2007 paper. Facts that contradict the prevailing opinion are simply not welcomed in this debate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 23:11
|
|
|
eSports Chaebol posted:That is a non-sequitur. Even if you believe that the state should be minimally involved in people's lives, and therefore account the cost of even minor restrictions on liberty as extraordinarily high, such costs are nonetheless clearly not infinite; otherwise there'd be no difference in the affront the liberty posed by regulation and summary execution! As such, you can measure costs and benefits even if you don't believe that cost-benefit analysis is a legitimate basis for policy. So even if you believe that a cost-benefit analysis of legalization is immaterial to whether or not marijuana should be legalized, that doesn't mean that the cost-benefit analysis of cannibis legalization doesn't turn crucially on its effect on heavy drinking. My point was that I believe there are other more crucial factors to such a cost-benefit analysis than the effect on heavy drinking (including but not limited to the effect on incarceration rates, economic effects, etc). Deciding to base such an analysis purely on health effects based on use of another substance seems like a subjective decision to me, and it's not one I agree with. TACD posted:If there are other similar studies out there I would love to know about them. Thanks for the studies, they are interesting. Diogenes Ex posted:Banning something because it "disrupts accepted social norms" is one of the most fascist and insidious things I've heard in a bit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2012 23:50
|
|
|
spengler posted:My point was that I believe there are other more crucial factors to such a cost-benefit analysis than the effect on heavy drinking (including but not limited to the effect on incarceration rates, economic effects, etc). Deciding to base such an analysis purely on health effects based on use of another substance seems like a subjective decision to me, and it's not one I agree with. I think you're misunderstanding the timeline of the argument. Kleiman put up a blog post, talking about unanswered questions surrounding marijuana legalization. One of them was, pretty much, "we know there's some kind of link between weed and alcohol; we don't know exactly how legalizing weed might change things, but it's worth keeping an eye on because we know just how damaging alcohol abuse can be." Noted conservative jackass David Frum took that blog post and ran with it, saying something to the effect of, "Social scientist Mark Kleiman says that legalizing marijuana would destroy society by making everyone drink more." The linked post is Kleiman's rebuttal to Frum, where Kleiman uses polite language to say, "David Frum is wrong, and lying about my work." The 10% number would represent a massive spike in heavy drinking. Kleiman is admitting that there is a theoretical point where, if marijuana legalization caused a huge spike in drinking, it might not come out positive in a cost/benefit analysis. That's not a particularly controversial statement, because there's a well-established causal link between heavy drinking and all kinds of social ills (including incarceration, domestic violence, DUIs, acute alcohol poisoning, cirrhosis, homelessness... there's a reason alcohol tops those charts posted earlier). If there was a similarly clear link between marijuana legalization and increased heavy drinking, it'd be hard to justify legalization on anything but ideological grounds. But - and here's the important part, which Kleiman is trying to point out in the post - that link between marijuana legalization and increased alcohol abuse, where Frum has based his argument, doesn't necessarily exist. We don't have any data on it. It's just as likely that legalization would lead to a massive decrease in alcohol abuse, which would make legalization an incredible win from a cost-benefit standpoint on that basis alone. Or, more likely, it'll have a smaller but still unpredictable effect. In any case, it's not reasonable to use the effect of marijuana legalization on drinking as the basis for social policy - which is the argument many posters in this thread have been making, and the argument Kleiman is making.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2012 01:01
|
|
|
spengler posted:
No, there is no rational or sane way to defend criminalization of any drug. Control, sure, but throwing people in jail for possession of personal amounts of recreational drugs with little to no dangers associated with their use will never be acceptable. There might be consequences for supplying harmful substances without proper warning, it might disqualify you from insurance coverage if you irresponsibly ruin your body, but jail? No.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2012 02:58
|
|
|
Warchicken posted:No, there is no rational or sane way to defend criminalization of any drug. Control, sure, but throwing people in jail for possession of personal amounts of recreational drugs with little to no dangers associated with their use will never be acceptable. You just contradicted yourself. You say you can't criminalize any drug then immediately turn around and add a "little to no danger" requirement. Which is it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2012 03:13
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:You just contradicted yourself. You say you can't criminalize any drug then immediately turn around and add a "little to no danger" requirement. Which is it? There obviously has to be a line drawn somewhere about what people can have - that is, having things like poisons and huge quantities of controlled substances. But personal amounts of recreational drugs should never be illegal, though there may be other unavoidable consequences of use, and those consequences will have to be codified somehow. But jail time? No. I guess I did word that stupidly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2012 03:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 09:42 |
|
|
Warchicken posted:
Even that's a bad idea because the overall societal harm from people with untreated medical needs is worse.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2012 05:34
|
|